Interesting Take on Islam and Libertarianism


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 373
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem is fundamentalism - whether that be Islamic fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, or Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are not our allies and we should not pretend that they are somehow 'liberal'.

It is most unfortunate that Adonis has had such an abusive welcome to NZ and to Libertarianz. In my view anyone who comes with peaceful intent and does not burden the taxpayer is welcome in this country.

It is also worth noting that US interests here have not been threatened by Muslims or 'Islamists' over the last few years - in fact the threats and security alerts come from the redneck demographic who fantasise about assassinating Obama....

Ruth,

Heh.

The phrase "Wahhabi Objectivism" keeps coming to mind...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, regarding forced sex with slaves from my understanding this isn't allowed.

[Forbidden to male believers in marriage are] Also married women, except those you own as slaves. (Qur'an 4:24; all quotations from the Dawood translation)

[Those who will not be going to hell are those] who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful for them: transgressors are those who lust after other than these). (Qur'an 70:29-30)

Prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom God has given you as booty (Qur'an 33:50; what is described here is not treated elsewhere as a special privilege of the Prophet's)

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my life, I have been in many discussions with (often fervent) advocates of ideologies, transcendent or not. No matter what the ideology, I have almost always observed a believer attitude not questioning the primary source.

Fervent Kantians quoted Kant with the same uncritical attitude of a Jehova's witness quoting the Bible; Marxists quoted from "The Capital" with the same uncritical attitude as feminists quoted from Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex".

Critical questions were often answered from them merely by quoting their "bibles" again. Classic case of circular reasoning.

It is important not to let oneself be caught up in the maze and get off course, but to insist on the people explaining their premises. My approach is always: go for the premises.

So my first question to this poster would start at the base: "What is the primary source for your belief?" (More later).

Part II:

Almost always, the primary source is the "bible" of whatever belief held, the Capital, the Koran, Kant's collected works, the Old Testament, you name it.

Almost always, fervent believers quickly become very uncomfortable once you start asking probing questions about what is written in the primary source.

Simple questions like "How do you know that what is in there is the truth?" are frequently met with a defensive "You don't seem to know much about the belief/philosopy. Go educate yourself first." This is often done without the believer having a clue about how familiar the critic actually might be with the subject. I'll call this phase 1.

In course of the discusson, should the believer realize that a critic does have substantial knowledge on the subject, the next salve is fired off in phase 2: "You don't understand what you have read." Like in phase 1, this answer serves to keep the critic at arms' length, keep him/her away in fact.

If the critic insists that the believer explain, by pointing out contradictions, giving examples, or answering direct questions, phase 3 begins:

Either the believer ends the exchange ("It is no use discussing this with you" is a typical answer),

or

personal insults start. This can get quite dramatic.

If the message threatening the belief can't be refuted, the messenger is attacked instead. The accumulated frustration about not being able to disprove the critic's points is now directed at the person of the critic.

At the bottom of it lies fear of the belief being threatened. It is fear of truth, fear of everything going to collapse should the belief collapse.

This fear is so great that few arrive at shedding their cherished belief in an ideology. So they prefer to cling to the illusion of "objective value" ALL these ideologies claim for themselves.

In direct personal face to face discussions, one knows the person, whereas in internet exchanges, you have to go by what you have on the net to get an idea of who you are dealing with.

So the first thing I did was to go to the SoloP debate Michael linked to. Whew! Adonis's posts unleashed quite a hurricane over there! It is true that SoloP often resembles a knife and gun club, but I could understand the shocked reactions by the posters about Adonis condoning stoning.

Going by Adonis' picture, he is a young man, and I have the gut feeling that his youth may play a substantial role in his enthusiasm for the "right" belief. No question imo that Adonis is a passionate believer.

Adonis is also remarkably eloquent and, and no doubt does have experience in debates, which means he won't throw in the towel easily here. For this IS going to get tough here too - it has already started getting tough.

At SoloP, Adonis wrote that he is "a slave to the Creator of the Universe", and that all mankind are his equals.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7254

A slave has no rights. A slave master-relationship to an almighty transcendent being can only be one of subservience.

What is going to happen as soon as Adonis realizes that Ayn Rand would turn in her grave at humans seeing themsselves as slaves of any god?

That she rejects the very idea of any belief in a god?

So I have a certain mental mage of this poster in my mind to start with.

Adonis, feel free to correct me if you think I'm way off base with anything here, but please be specific. I always need something to hang my hat on.

In my post, I have summed up the frequent experiences I have had with believers, but this doesn't mean every fervent believer necessarily will fit the profile. I have observed it often enough though to see a pattern.

Let's get started. Adonis has replied to my question

View PostXray, on 04 January 2010 - 10:16 AM, said:

So my first question to this poster would start at the base: "What is the primary source for your belief?"

Adonis Hello Xray, welcome to the conversation!

The primary sources that we look at in Islam are the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The latter being complimentary to the first as we believe that Muhammad, peace be upon him was the human example for us to follow.

Is that what you're asking or are you asking why I believe what I believe?

Hello Adonis, thanks for the welcome.

My first question was about the source (see elaborations at the beginning of my post), and my second may be bit blunt: how do you know that what is in there is the truth? Have you ever questioned the reliability of the source?

If not, WHY precisely do you think your source is reliable, tells you the truth?

Re the adultery debate: you said you condone stoning of adulteres if the adultery has been observed in public by at least four witnesses.

How does this connect to reality, Adonis? Can you you think of any adulterous couple performing sexual intercourse in public in front of witnesses??

So what is all that 'witness' thing about? I suspect it is about something entirely different: that people are readily often accused of 'adultery' if they don't behave according to a certain rigid behavioral code, i. e. when a man and woman speak to each other when it is 'forbidden' (because a woman is not supposed to speak to any man in public), they will easily get accused of adultery by "witnesses" in a society rigidly controlling its members.

Another question I have: are you for or against separating politics and religion?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*] Muhammad and his followers started wars to enlarge their empire and Muhammad himself engaged in battle and killed people.

Which war was it that Muhammad started? Yes, he did indeed kill people in combat and criminals sentenced to death. But he was the leader of a nation and an army. The Commander-in-Chief if you will.

I have found a site with a great deal of information on Muslim wars and slavery. It seems to be very well documented. I also verified some of the claims with another source: Malise Ruthven, Islam in the World, second edition, Oxford University Press, 1984. The latter source is more moderate in its tone but seems to concur as to the facts. Here is a relevant passage from the website:

Medina and the Origin of Jihad

Stinging from the rejection of his own town and tribe, Muhammad's message immediately become more intolerant and ruthless - particularly as he gained power. Islam's holiest book clearly reflects this contrast, with the later parts of the Qur'an adding violence and earthly defeats at the hands of Muslims to the woes of eternal damnation that the earlier parts of the book promises those who will not believe in Muhammad.

It was at Medina that Islam evolved from the relatively peaceful religion that had thus far been borrowed from others to the overwhelming force that it became during the last ten years of Muhammad's life in which infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death, and even rounded up and slaughtered.

To fund his quest for control, Muhammad first directed his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the holy months, when the victims would least expect it. This was despite the fact that the Meccans were not bothering him in Medina (see MYTH: Muhammad and his Muslims were Persecuted by the Meccans at Medina).

Revelations "from Allah" were conveniently provided to Muhammad which allowed his people to murder innocent drivers and steal in his service (Ibn Ishaq 426). The people around him gradually developed a lust for things that could be taken in battle, including material comforts and captured women and children. (See also MYTH: Muhammad Raided Caravans to Retrieve Stolen Property).

Often the people captured in battle would be brought before the self-proclaimed prophet, where they would plead for their lives, arguing, for example, that they would never have treated the Muslims that way. The traditions are quite clear in portraying Muhammad as largely unmoved by their pleas, and ordering their deaths anyway, often by horrible means. In one case, he orders a man slain, telling him that “Hell” will take care of the poor fellow’s orphaned daughter (Ishaq 459). (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Captives)

The raids on caravans preceded the first major battle involving a Muslim army, the Battle of Badr. This was the spot where the Meccans had sent their own army to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders. Although, Muslims today like to claim that they only attack others in self-defense, this was clearly not the case in Muhammad's time. In fact, he had to compel his reluctant warriors with promises of paradise and assurances that their religion was more important than the lives of others. (See also MYTH: The Battle of Badr was Defensive).

[*] The slave trade continued for a thousand years after Muhammad. Up to a million Europeans were captured and taken into slavery by Muslim pirates in North Africa and the Middle East. In fact, the fledgling United States sent war ships to the Mediterranean to combat Muslim pirates. Black Africans were also taken into slavery in large numbers and were often treated brutally.

Islam forbade such things, if Muslims partook in them then they did so against the teachings of Islam. I might remind you that the majority of those Africans taken into slavery were indeed Muslims also.

Muhammad himself kept slaves and there is little evidence that he opposed slavery in general.

Typical of those who propagate the myth of Muhammad as an abolitionist is this little nugget, from a Muslim website notorious for pushing taqiyya:

“Our Prophet (peace be upon him) never approved of slavery. He once purchased the life of a slave who came to him, liberating him from his master!”

No doubt there are plenty of gullible users on the Internet who swallowed this hook, line and sinker, but here is the real story on which it is based:

There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man) (Sahih Muslim 3901).

Hmmm... this certainly places the story of "Muhammad the Abolitionist" in a whole different light!

In the first place, Muhammad “purchased” the slave by trading two black slaves, which is hardly a shining example of emancipation. Not only that, but it establishes the fact that Muhammad owned and traded African slaves. As a wealthy businessman, he certainly could have liberated all three slaves, but instead chose to sell the two Africans into an uncertain future.

Secondly, it is obvious from the passage that Muhammad felt he had been conned into liberating the slave who had come to him, since he was not told of his status as a slave. Because, of this, Muhammad decided that he would not be duped again. In the future, he would always ask first about whether a man was free or not before deciding whether to accept allegiance.

Neither is there any record of Muhammad “liberating” slaves captured in battle, unless there was something that he personally gained from the act. In fact, he made slaves out of those who were previously free people, particularly if they were women and children. Sometimes he used families as leverage to force their men into accepting Islam:

The apostle told them to tell Malik that if he came to him as a Muslim he would return his family and property to him and give him a hundred camels. (Ibn Ishaq 879)

Captured women were passed out like party favors to his men, some of whom were then passed along to others. This passage tells of Muhammad giving women as sex slaves to the three men who would become his successors, the future caliphs Umar, Uthman and Ali:

The apostle gave Ali a girl called Rayta; and he gave Uthman a girl called Zaynab; and he gave Umar a girl whom Umar gave to his son Abdullah. (Ibn Ishaq 878)

Allah gave Muslim men a divine mandate to keep as many sex slaves as they wished (Qur’an 4:24, 33:52…). Contemporary apologists often pretend that this applies only to women captured in battle (see also Myth: Muhammad Would Never Approve of Rape), but the same privilege is granted to believing men in 70:30, a passage “revealed” to the Muslims in Mecca, when they had not fought in battle.

Much could be written about Muhammad’s prolific and well-documented relationship with slaves, but one of the most insightful examples comes from this hadith (which is repeated elsewhere):

The Prophet sent for a woman from the emigrants and she had a slave who was a carpenter. The Prophet said to her "Order your slave to prepare the wood (pieces) for the pulpit." So, she ordered her slave who went and cut the wood from the tamarisk and prepared the pulpit, for the Prophet. When he finished the pulpit, the woman informed the Prophet that it had been finished. The Prophet asked her to send that pulpit to him, so they brought it. The Prophet lifted it and placed it at the place in which you see now. (Bukari 47:743)

The very pulpit that Muhammad preached Islam from was constructed from slave labor on his command! Now does this sound like Muhammad had a problem with slavery?

[*] Religious minorities were treated as dhimmi. They may have had some legal rights and may have been tolerated, but they were treated as inferior to Muslims. Islam has always practiced a form of religious bigotry towards non-Muslims.

I think you should re examine the issue, what Islam states through the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him is completely the opposite. Just because throughout history some dhimmi were treated as if they were inferior it can't be blamed on Islam, rather it's blamed on the person who went to extremes against what Islam said.

So, persecuting dhimmi is justified if they voice their opposition to Islam?

Do you have any evidence that those thinkers were positively influenced (or influenced at all) by Islam?

There was a quote in one of the articles I provided links for on the SOLO website which also included a link to a book I think the information is on there.

I'm not going to chase down your evidence for you.

As I was researching this post, I found an interesting article about Islam, war, slavery and Thomas Jefferson. Here are some relevant points.

A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson's friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen." This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not.

I think the words of the Abassador are particularly revealing. He quotes the Koran (Quran) as stating that Muslims have the right and duty to make war upon and enslave non-Muslims. I have read similar things in other places. If I get around to it, I might dig it up in my copy of the Koran. At any rate, the edicts of the Koran are far from benign.

Darrell

Well to be honest, I believe that any person will use anything they can to justify their lust for money and power, religion or science (like with today's carbon trading). But that still doesn't mean that Islam is to blame.

Here is a quote from the Quran:

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

There are many more. I just haven't had time to research further.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Forbidden to male believers in marriage are] Also married women, except those you own as slaves. (Qur'an 4:24; all quotations from the Dawood translation)

[Those who will not be going to hell are those] who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful for them: transgressors are those who lust after other than these). (Qur'an 70:30)

Prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom God has given you as booty (Qur'an 33:50; what is described here is not treated elsewhere as a special privilege of the Prophet's)

Robert Campbell

Hi Robert, I wasn't saying that you couldn't have sexual relations with slaves, I was saying that from my understanding you cannot force a slave to have sex with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew! Adonis's posts unleashed quite a hurricane over there! It is true that SoloP often resembles a knife and gun club, but I could understand the shocked reactions by the posters about Adonis condoning stoning.

Well, to be fair, they started their insulting and profane reactions like that long before the issue of adultery was raised Xray.

Going by Adonis' picture, he is a young man, and I have the gut feeling that his youth may play a substantial role in his enthusiasm for the "right" belief. No question imo that Adonis is a passionate believer.

Adonis is also remarkably eloquent and, and no doubt does have experience in debates, which means he won't throw in the towel easily here. For this IS going to get tough here too - it has already started getting tough.

Well thank you Xray, I think that is because I've heard all of these arguments before etc, and have researched most of the cases that people bring up.

My faith in my religion over the last 8 years has only gotten stronger from engaging in discussions with people because for everything that I have seen so far, I can find suitable explanations.

At SoloP, Adonis wrote that he is "a slave to the Creator of the Universe", and that all mankind are his equals.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7254

A slave has no rights. A slave master-relationship to an almighty transcendent being can only be one of subservience.

What is going to happen as soon as Adonis realizes that Ayn Rand would turn in her grave at humans seeing themsselves as slaves of any god?

That she rejects the very idea of any belief in a god?

So I have a certain mental mage of this poster in my mind to start with.

Adonis, feel free to correct me if you think I'm way off base with anything here, but please be specific. I always need something to hang my hat on.

Xray, you are indeed right. A slave has no inalienable rights except those which are granted to them by their master.

However, when your master is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth it is different to having a human master.

I believe also in the following statement by perhaps one of my greatest heroes, Thomas Jefferson:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yes, I am a slave to God and believe in Him as being the Creator of the Universe. I acknowledge the Creator as being the Greatest Power in the Universe and so that means, I worship that Creator.

I'd urge you to look at what is actually being said here. I believe that in being a slave ONLY to God, that I am equal to any other human on this Earth, that no man can be born with or attain, greater rights than I based on their color, race, creed, class, race, name, profession, wealth or title. That I am, inherently equal to all people as they are to me and endowed with the same ability as they, that is. If I strive I can do as much as any other human being.

Also, Ayn Rands beliefs were her own, she was entitled to believe as she chose without being forced to justify her beliefs just like any other human being.

Hello Adonis, thanks for the welcome.

My first question was about the source (see elaborations at the beginning of my post), and my second may be bit blunt: how do you know that what is in there is the truth? Have you ever questioned the reliability of the source?

If not, WHY precisely do you think your source is reliable, tells you the truth?

Which source specifically? The Qur'an?

Because I believe that there were enough witnesses of sound mind and body during the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him who testified that his character was that of a good man who was not a liar nor incapacitated by illness or mental deficiency and who state clearly that what they saw was true and can corroborate each others story on this. I believe that the book, ie the Qur'an is a book of immense knowledge and logic which I don't believe could have come from any man, especially that of an illiterate man.

Re the adultery debate: you said you condone stoning of adulteres if the adultery has been observed in public by at least four witnesses.

How does this connect to reality, Adonis? Can you you think of any adulterous couple performing sexual intercourse in public in front of witnesses??

So what is all that 'witness' thing about? I suspect it is about something entirely different: that people are readily often accused of 'adultery' if they don't behave according to a certain rigid behavioral code, i. e. when a man and woman speak to each other when it is 'forbidden' (because a woman is not supposed to speak to any man in public), they will easily get accused of adultery by "witnesses" in a society rigidly controlling its members.

It doesn't connect to reality Xray because at the end of the day, people who do commit adultery by their very nature usually commit it in privacy. All the punishment for adultery and fornication are there for is to prevent people from bringing their transgressions out into the public and harming the public with them by imposing such perversions on everyone else.

I suppose you could look at it and say, the idea is to prevent society over time from becoming decadent and corrupted like that of Sodom and Gomorra, that is why it requires not just four witnesses, but four witnesses that are of good standing character and reliable, who have not perjured themselves in a court of law before. If people were to keep their sins to themselves by doing whatever they do in private then there is no problem. Because we're forbidden from spying on each other.

Also, contrary to what the Wahhabis and Taliban believe, Islam doesn't forbid a man and woman who are unrelated from talking in public.

Another question I have: are you for or against separating politics and religion?

I believe that the state should not legislate things that aren't it's business like religion, marriage etc. So I believe that ultimately in addition to normal common law, if a person so wished they should be accountable to their religious laws and customs but also have the choice of opting out.

Edited by Adonis Vlahos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*] I can't believe that you can actually draw a moral equivalence between our country and our government and the tyrannical regimes around the world. There have been a few bad actors in this country, but where are the mass graves? Where are the beheadings? As the most powerful country in the world, we could commit atrocities around the globe at will, but look at Iraq. How many Middle Easterners were beheaded by American soldiers? How many American (and allied) soldiers and civilians were beheaded by people from the Middle East?

You mean like the near extermination of all of the millions Native Americans? Countless broken treaties? Slavery? Lynchings? Rapes? Torture? Segregation? Racism?

You make it sound as if there was some concerted attempt to ethnically cleanse America of the native Americans. What kind of revisionist history are you reading?

The story of the American natives is a story of an Agrarian people moving into a land of hunter/gatherers. Most of the settlers bore no ill will towards the natives nor did the natives bear any ill will towards the settlers. The problem was that the settlers needed some place to settle and the natives basically used all of the land for hunting. Because of their nomadic lifestyle, the natives used the land lightly but essentially needed all of it to maintain the herds that they lived on. The settlers each needed only a small piece of land, but they needed land that they could use intensively in farming operations. The result was that as the settlers moved in, less and less land was available for hunting. The consequence was conflict.

Looking at the history, there were wrongs committed on both sides. Early on, the natives sided with the French against the English settlers in the French and Indian wars. Later, there were attacks by the natives against the settlers. Here is a link to a reference concerning the Spirit Lake massacre. However, in the long run, the better armed, more technologically advanced, and more numerous settlers drove the natives off their land.

The question is, what could have been done to avoid the conflict? Should the settlers have recognized the native lifestyle and decided not to settle? The settlers needed places to live. If they had not found a place to settle, they might have died of starvation or other privations. Should they have purchased the land? The natives, for the most part, didn't consider themselves owners of the land and could not conceive of selling it.

Note that I'm not arguing that the need of the settlers for land trumped anyone's right to own what they already had. I'm not defending the taking of someone else's land. If the settlers could have purchased land, they should have done so. The problem is that there was no one available to sell it.

Clearly, there were some attempts to find understanding between the settlers and the natives. That is why treaties were made in the first place. Yes, many treaties were inexcusably broken, mostly by the fledgling U.S. government. But, no one today is denying that it happened. No one is defending that practice. No one is saying that things shouldn't have been done differently. When will Muslims admit that Muhammad and his followers should have done things differently?

Slavery is the same kind of issue. Slavery existed when this country was founded. We fought a war to rid ourselves of it. But, no one is denying that it existed. No one is denying that Jefferson owned slaves. Are you willing to admit that Muhammad owned slaves?

The CIA backed assassination of JFK because he wanted to end the federal reserve, stop the military industrial complex, dismantle the CIA and bring troops home from Vietnam?

The FBI involvement in murdering Malcolm X because he was too popular and when he began speaking about the unity of mankind and not the segregation of races and saying the only criteria should be justice?

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

COINTELPRO?

This is a complex issue.

The war in Vietnam?

A war against communist expansion. Again, a complex issue.

The countless Latin American dictators put into place and their goons being trained at the School of the Americas and by the CIA to torture, execute etc to put fear into their people. The 1,500,000 Indonesians who died as a result of the US putting Soharto into power and supporting his dictatorship.

The latter sounds like an exaggeration, but I'm not going to defends those activities.

Supporting the Bin Laden family, Arab tyrants and monarchs, training and paying Al-Qaeda and aiding the Taliban?

Part of the cold war.

Clean you own house up before you start saying you need to change us.

The issue is corruption in this country versus fundamental Islamic principles that are incompatible with freedom. Every government in history has had some level of corruption, but I would put the U.S. record up against that of any powerful country. I don't see anything to recommend Islam.

If you don't like having your soldiers being beheaded in Iraq, it's simple..

Follow the following steps:

1. Don't install dictators and tyrants as governments to create 'stability' in the region (ie to ensure your oil is coming no matter which civilians are oppressed).

Who dug the oil wells and erected the pumps before they were expropriated by the Middle Eastern governments? Whose oil is it anyway?

2. Don't give those dictators chemical and biological weapons and have them use it against their neighbor who just became independent after overthrowing the tyrant you put into place after creating a coup against their democratically elected government.

Mistakes. But I'd still defend the overall record of the U.S.

3. Don't bomb a country with Depleted Uranium weapons and then put sanctions on them so that they can't buy the medical equipment to treat the cancer you created with those weapons.

4. Don't let those sanctions kill more than 1,500,000 Iraqis between the years 1991 and 2003, of which more than 500,000 were under the age of 5 years old.

Those deaths are the responsibility of Saddam Hussein.

5. Don't have your soldiers there occupying land which is not yours.

Give me a break. The U.S. liberated Iraq and will leave as soon as a stable government is in place. A country that liberates another country from a murderous tyrant has no reason to apologize.

These are just some steps your country could take to ensure that your soldiers aren't needlessly losing their lives to beheadings and IED's.

Keep your noses out of other people's lands and stop trying to rule absolutely everything in the world. If you allow people to make their own decisions and show a good example of liberty, they'll come running towards that liberty because ultimately it's a better idea.

This is utter nonsense. The U.S. has no desire to rule any other country. We have had very little involvement in the Middle East until recently and that was largely the result of a vicious attack on the U.S.

I'm happy if Adonis is looking for justifications for peace and liberty in the Quran and other Islamic references. Perhaps there are verses that moderate Muslims look at to justify their moderate behavior. That's great. But, I'm not convinced that Islam can be redeemed. In its essence, Islam is a religion of submission. The word Islam itself means submission. It is hard to see how a submissive people can ever develop pride, independence, rationality and other attributes required for life in a free society.

You lack an understanding of Islamic history then, we submit to only one thing. God. That means we believe ourselves equal to all human beings and able to achieve anything in this world.

You may consider yourself equal to (or even superior to) all other human beings, but you must also throw off the shackles of religion.

Moreover, Islam explicitly calls for an Islamic government. Christianity does not. Christianity is very accommodating to the notion that there can be separation of church and state. Islam is not. That is one of the reasons that Islam will NOT leave you in peace.

What is an Islamic Government? Are you aware of what you speak about?

An Islamic government is one that imposes Sharia law on its citizens, among other things.

Darrell

Edited by Darrell Hougen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truce_Fl.jpgTruce Flag

Can we please get some agreement on two concepts:

1. Definitions; and

2. Let's talk about current Muslims.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truce_Fl.jpgTruce Flag

Can we please get some agreement on two concepts:

2. Let's talk about current Muslims.

Adam

Do you mean the kind that explode bombs in market places and blow up people in schools and Mosques?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truce_Fl.jpgTruce Flag

Can we please get some agreement on two concepts:

2. Let's talk about current Muslims.

Adam

Do you mean the kind that explode bombs in market places and blow up people in schools and Mosques?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, some individuals who strap bombs and explosive devices on themselves and detonate them in market places. schools and Mosques are Muslims.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truce_Fl.jpgTruce Flag

Can we please get some agreement on two concepts:

1. Definitions; and

2. Let's talk about current Muslims.

Adam

Hi Adam,

Adonis's entire argument is that we need to get back to the fundamentals as originally taught and practiced by Muhammad and recorded in the Quran. That necessitates going back in time to the beginning of Islam.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Adam,

Adonis's entire argument is that we need to get back to the fundamentals as originally taught and practiced by Muhammad and recorded in the Quran. That necessitates going back in time to the beginning of Islam.

Darrell

All the way back to 622 c.e. when science did not exist, logic was largely forgotten and reason did not rule the world. There was a darkness, then, upon the western world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert, I wasn't saying that you couldn't have sexual relations with slaves [according to the Qur'an], I was saying that from my understanding you cannot force a slave to have sex with you.

Adonis,

I can't find any prohibition in the Qur'an against forced sex with slaves. Is there one that I missed? If there is in fact none in the Qur'an, is there a prohibition in the hadith, or in traditional Islamic legal sources?

Of course, we are speaking of men forcing female slaves to have sex with them.

Women compelling male slaves to have sex with them would have been subject to a host of Qur'anic prohibitions.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and also, someone asked if I wanted to implement the stoning punishment here in New Zealand. No, absolutely not. Short of New Zealand converting en masse to Islam and through referendum of at least 90% of the adult population demanding such a change to the laws to include the punishment of such, I absolutely wouldn't want it here. I also am very very doubtful of any current nation's ability to implement any 'hudood' or capital punishments appropriately.

For me the stoning part is the bridge too far. I asked if it was part of his ideal legal/cultural framework, and he’s answered in the affirmative. The four witnesses part serves to make it a very rare punishment, one hopes (but a punishment dealt out by whom?), but even the possibility of such a punishment being imposed is beyond what I can stomach. I can easily imagine a husband unexpectedly coming home with four of his buddies in tow and surprise(!) his wife is in bed with the captain of the championship soccer team. A one time irresistible roll in the hay. Too bad, death by torture, Islam decrees it. Adding insult to injury, if the wife comes home with four other hens, finds her husband with Angelina (it could happen), what then? Goose not equal to Gander.

Adonis, is Sharia your ideal? How do you reconcile that with libertarianism? In an earlier post I characterized the original Caliphates as dictatorial welfare states, did they arise out of a proper application of Sharia? Would you define what libertarianism means to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent questions.

"Adonis, is Sharia your ideal? How do you reconcile that with libertarianism?"

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else noticed the banner ad that’s started coming up on this site for Muslim marriages? The girl in the picture starts getting pretty cute the 10th time you’ve see her. We’re due for some levity on this thread:

virgins.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Adam,

Adonis's entire argument is that we need to get back to the fundamentals as originally taught and practiced by Muhammad and recorded in the Quran. That necessitates going back in time to the beginning of Islam.

Darrell

Thank you Darrel, exactly.

I will respond to your earlier post a little later, I'm at work and it requires a big response to all of your points.

Adonis,

I can't find any prohibition in the Qur'an against forced sex with slaves. Is there one that I missed? If there is in fact none in the Qur'an, is there a prohibition in the hadith, or in traditional Islamic legal sources?

Of course, we are speaking of men forcing female slaves to have sex with them.

Women compelling male slaves to have sex with them would have been subject to a host of Qur'anic prohibitions.

Robert Campbell

"And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 24:33)

The tafsirs or scholastic interpretations for this verse indicates that this is not just whoredom, but also fornication if the slave girl wishes to remain chaste or who simply just doesn't want to have sex with her master. Some even go to the extent of saying you can't even have sex with your slave unless you marry her. Just a note because I'm sure someone will raise it, the "Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful" part is not applying to the person who forces a slave girl to have sex with them .

For me the stoning part is the bridge too far. I asked if it was part of his ideal legal/cultural framework, and he’s answered in the affirmative. The four witnesses part serves to make it a very rare punishment, one hopes (but a punishment dealt out by whom?), but even the possibility of such a punishment being imposed is beyond what I can stomach. I can easily imagine a husband unexpectedly coming home with four of his buddies in tow and surprise(!) his wife is in bed with the captain of the championship soccer team. A one time irresistible roll in the hay. Too bad, death by torture, Islam decrees it. Adding insult to injury, if the wife comes home with four other hens, finds her husband with Angelina (it could happen), what then? Goose not equal to Gander.

Adonis, is Sharia your ideal? How do you reconcile that with libertarianism? In an earlier post I characterized the original Caliphates as dictatorial welfare states, did they arise out of a proper application of Sharia? Would you define what libertarianism means to you?

Well I won't say shariah is my ideal because your understanding of Shariah isn't what my understanding is.

Also, regarding those caliphs. I don't recognize their right to lead and believed they usurped power. So I agree, they were dictators and created a nanny state, but if you look at how Yazeed bin Mu'awiyah a tyrant used the welfare state as a means to coerce the people into not helping Imam Hussein ibn Ali who was the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and then brutally massacred not only Imam Hussein but most members of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's family at Karbala, displaying their heads for everyone to see. This event is a perfect example of why the welfare state is unislamic and only leads to tyranny. You have no freedom to speak against a tyrant while you rely on them to feed you. Libertarianism in my opinion perfectly fits with Islam and the events which occurred right after the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's death up until today are perfect examples of why this is the case.

Edited by Adonis Vlahos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with stoning, but as I have said, I also don't agree with capital punishment.

I think a person is just as dead if he or she is stoned to death or electrocuted or hung by the neck or injected with poison of made to breathe toxic gas or shot through the heart.

Within that context, I don't see stoning as much worse than the other forms of slaughter.

When we get to capital punishment for sexual conduct, that is something I will never agree with. I would find it just as bad if lethal injection (usually in front of an audience) were used instead of stoning.

Be that as it may, I have larger priorities on my plate right now. Communication is one of them. If you refuse to communicate with someone, you will never be able to sell them on any idea.

I am not talking about communicating with someone like Ahmadinejad, either. I am talking about communicating with a normal nice person who happens to be Muslim.

Someone like Adonis, for instance...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with stoning, but as I have said, I also don't agree with capital punishment.

I think a person is just as dead if he or she is stoned to death or electrocuted or hung by the neck or injected with poison of made to breathe toxic gas or shot through the heart.

Within that context, I don't see stoning as much worse than the other forms of slaughter.

Stoning isn’t humane by any stretch of the imagination, its public torture, carried out with the active participation of the public.

<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>

Timothy McVeigh was executed by lethal injection (painlessly), there was no doubt about his guilt, I say he forfeited his right to life for killing 168 people. It seems we differ on capital punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

Just so we are clear, I would not be too big on prisoner rights for someone like McVeigh. Basic nutrition and sanitation, minimal health care, and lots of dull, hard labor, with no parole, ever, would be more in line with my view. And that's only just in case we missed something.

And if I believed in capital punishment, I think stoning for him would have been appropriate.

(If I had been around while he was setting up and was convinced he was planting a bomb, I also would have had no problem shooting him on the spot.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if I believed in capital punishment, I think stoning for him would have been appropriate.

I have to admit if Hitler had been drawn and quartered I’d have had trouble articulating an objection to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I won't say shariah is my ideal because your understanding of Shariah isn't what my understanding is.

Fair enough, but capital punishment for marital infidelity and institutionalised stoning for anything (note very special exception for Hitler) is beyond the acceptable. I’m thinking of the line from the Beatles song Revolution, “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow”.

Also, regarding those caliphs. I don't recognize their right to lead and believed they usurped power. So I agree, they were dictators and created a nanny state, but if you look at how Yazeed bin Mu'awiyah a tyrant used the welfare state as a means to coerce the people into not helping Imam Hussein ibn Ali who was the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and then brutally massacred not only Imam Hussein but most members of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's family at Karbala, displaying their heads for everyone to see. This event is a perfect example of why the welfare state is unislamic and only leads to tyranny. You have no freedom to speak against a tyrant while you rely on them to feed you. Libertarianism in my opinion perfectly fits with Islam and the events which occurred right after the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's death up until today are perfect examples of why this is the case.

I’m not familiar with this history, I’ve only read about the first four Caliphs (the “right guided”), but what you say is what I’d hope to hear a libertarian Muslim say. Nevertheless, you haven’t spelled out what libertarianism means to you, is your view of the proper functions of government consistent with Rand’s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but capital punishment for marital infidelity and institutionalised stoning for anything (note very special exception for Hitler) is beyond the acceptable. I’m thinking of the line from the Beatles song Revolution, “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow”.

I can appreciate you feel that way, but the punishment, as I've said isn't really for infidelity, it's for making it so public and humiliating your partner like that. The example you gave before of coming home to find your wife in bed with someone else isn't likely to happen because even the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said you shouldn't go home to your house without warning your wife that you are coming first, and not to be suspicious that your wife is gallivanting around with the local soccer coach.

I’m not familiar with this history, I’ve only read about the first four Caliphs (the “right guided”), but what you say is what I’d hope to hear a libertarian Muslim say. Nevertheless, you haven’t spelled out what libertarianism means to you, is your view of the proper functions of government consistent with Rand’s?

The Battle of Kerbala is a very big occasion in Islamic History, it is when Islam was saved from being completely changed by Yazid. And you are indeed correct, there are Muslims who believe that all four of the first caliphs were rightly guided, but I don't believe this at all and neither do all Muslim. None of the first three had the right to lead and committed many crimes whilst in power.

If you would like to know about the Battle of Karbala here is a link. http://www.al-islam.org/ashura/ It's a big read, but you'll see after this precisely why I believe what I do in terms of freedom.

Libertarianism to me is basically being able to do whatever you want, providing that you don't harm anyone else in the process. Small government without interference in your life by them. Low taxes because taxation is banditry and oppression. Free commerce and markets to promote prosperity. The rights of the people can not be infringed, ever. Tyranny must be opposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if I believed in capital punishment, I think stoning for him would have been appropriate.

I have to admit if Hitler had been drawn and quartered I'd have had trouble articulating an objection to it.

I'd object. Try hanged, drawn and quartered! That's better!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now