Interesting Take on Islam and Libertarianism

[Libertarian Muslim]

To the first, all that is required is a majority of Muslims or willing slaves thereto. What about the few that wish to be free. Under Sharia they are screwed.

As to the second see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi.

It is second class subject hood and a protection racket. Just right for the thug mentality typical to which Islam tends.

Your comment and question indicates just how disingenuous you are. Sneaky, sneaky. Shame on you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm not being disingenuous at all, I just want to make sure we're on the same page about the words you use. It's quite easy to just say a word but not understand its correct meaning.

Your understanding of what a Dhimmi is also incorrect. It's neither a form of second class subjecthood nor is it a protection racket. Shame on your ignorance.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[9thdoctor]

Your understanding of what a Dhimmi is also incorrect. It's neither a form of second class subjecthood nor is it a protection racket.

Based on the Wikipedia article for Dhimmi, its means you’re a taxpayer in a theocracy, but not part of the state religion. That sounds reasonable, no more a protection racket than taxes paid for national defense are. However the material halfway down the page, starting with “Humiliation of dhimmis” certainly gives pause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

I couldn’t nail you down on whether you hold Sharia as an ideal, but would you dispute that Sharia = Theocracy? And Theocracy ≠ Libertarianism?

BTW, do you generally find Wikipedia articles on Islam to be fair?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I hope you do read some Rand, I suggest getting The Virtue of Selfishness first, or maybe just dive into Atlas Shrugged straight away.

Dennis,

Adonis's manner of thinking, interacting with others, and good character indeed show that he would become a top-notch independent Objectivist if he ever goes that way.

But, to me, it doesn't matter. I believe that the cause of spreading liberty throughout the world has--and will have--a great friend in him irrespective of which philosophy or religion he follows.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Based on the Wikipedia article for Dhimmi, its means you’re a taxpayer in a theocracy, but not part of the state religion. That sounds reasonable, no more a protection racket than taxes paid for national defense are. However the material halfway down the page, starting with “Humiliation of dhimmis” certainly gives pause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

I couldn’t nail you down on whether you hold Sharia as an ideal, but would you dispute that Sharia = Theocracy? And Theocracy ≠ Libertarianism?

BTW, do you generally find Wikipedia articles on Islam to be fair?

Hi Ninth Doctor, even during the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him the Jews in Medina weren't even required to pay the tax if they agreed to be obligated to come to the defence of the city if it came under attack. It simply gave them the option to fight or support those who were defending them. Muslims had no choice, if the city was under attack they were obligated to fight against the attacking army in defence of the city and including defending the lives, freedom, wealth and property of the Jews.

Also, regarding the the humiliation of the dhimmis, you're quite correct. These events did take place, but that isn't Islam, rather it's the extremism of those rulers of the time. They were horrible and even had no right to lead the Muslims.

I don't think that Shariah is a theocracy either. You are not ruled by clerics in an Islamic state in my opinion and you can elect your leadership.

[9thdoctor]

Adonis's manner of thinking, interacting with others, and good character indeed show that he would become a top-notch independent Objectivist if he ever goes that way.

I’m less sanguine, but hope you’re right. I will say that if the teacher who introduced me to Rand had acted like Perigo, I might still be a Catholic. I’ve known fundamentalist christians that had many years of indoctrination who changed their views completely after reading Rand. Adonis is very committed to his religious beliefs, and doesn’t even blanch at its least palatable features (stoning). The old line about absurdities and atrocities comes to mind.

He looks to an idealized future Islam, one that hasn’t existed yet (except during Muhammad’s life, and even then there are qualifications). A parallel in Objectivism is the fact that there hasn’t been a true capitalist time/place in history for us to point to. I think the turning point for him will be when he realizes that the Horror Story Islam of most of its history is the inescapable result of its premises and teachings. Reading Rand might get him there.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

My particular viewpoint is that, in terms of my own philosophical values, I don't care what Adonis believes or disbelieves, so long as he agrees that I have a right to be left alone in peace. (As a friend, of course, I would care, but I am not discussing that.) And I know he believes I have a right to be left alone in peace through his words and behavior, irrespective of what he may say about religion. He has even said, explicitly and several times, that this is what he wants.

It would be a very good thing if Muslims were of a like mind. I actually believe most are (not the fundamentalist Islamists, the others), but the ideas are not clearly articulated. They need emphasis and solid forms. They need to be on Mulsim's lips as ideas that are important.

These things are already in their hearts. They should be on their lips.

I am convinced that Adonis stands a far greater chance of being heard by Muslims than I do. I am also convinced that this the message of liberty is crucially important to today's world. And I believe he is interested in spreading those ideas to the Muslim world.

That's why I believe he is and will be a great friend to liberty.

Observe his and my behavior. We both have said things that are the direct opposite, especially about Israel.

We disagree.

But we disagree in peace, with mutual respect.

Isn't that behavior a concrete referent for others who are interested in liberty to follow? Or at least to consider?

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

Regarding primacy of consciousness, a person who subscribes to it doesn't need to use it all the time. Compartmentalizing is somewhat common, e.g. the scientist who uses the primacy of existence at work but the primacy of consciousness regarding religious matters.

I've been puzzling over the implications of this comment since I read it last night, because I don't understand the underlying premise. Could someone please enlighten me?

What I don't understand is how religion can be seen as representing "primacy of consciousness". There are two basic religious views, both of which assert the primacy of existence:

1) what might be called the classic Abrahamic (Jewish/Christian/Muslim) position, that God exists, and is the source of all existence and that we are bound to do what God wants us to do--which can make sense only if you believe in a reality that is exterior to you, and to whose dictates we must conform (and that, after all, once the religious implications are shorn off, is the Objectivist position)

2)what might be called the Asiatic (Hindu/Buddhist/Taoist) position, that consciousness is not only not primary, but that it is an illusion--to the extent it can be said to exist at all, it is directly dependent on independent reality. (I realize that very often the Asiatic position is stated in terms of saying that reality is an illusion, but it must be understood that all of them assert an Absolute Reality which is beyond the possibility of conceptualizing, but which exists, and that our self awareness is simply another aspect of the illusion, with any real substantive existence.)

Can someone please explain.

Jeffrey S.

Edited January 13, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[9thdoctor]

MSK,

I was only writing about AV qua future Objectivist, and I didn’t make one of the points I was working towards. If he were to approach Objectivism with the same traits he applies to Islam, I’m afraid he’d be among the worst of the Comrade Sonias. Islam is a "closed system" religion (Muhammad was the last prophet), so this point is pretty obvious. It’s also obvious that if he is won over, it will be life changing, so there’s no way of predicting anything. In closing, your phrase “he would become a top-notch independent Objectivist” is…benevolently wishful.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In closing, your phrase "he would become a top-notch independent Objectivist" is…benevolently wishful.

Dennis,

That could be true. I'm willing to admit it's an opinion. But my opinion is based on my Doctorate Degree from Screw U. I worked hard for that degree and paid my dues...

I sense a person of good character with Adonis.

This is different than the time I cut a lot of slack for the dude who spammed OL with plagiarized posts. I was trying to change that guy back then (an experiment in moral learning) and boy, did I misfire!

I have no wish to change Adonis, nor be changed by him. I merely wish to interact with him.

There are no guarantees, of course, but in my experience, people who are serene with their world view like he has expressed rarely (almost never) change that manner of being if their world view changes. They continue in serenity and not wishing to harm others.

Interestingly enough, the opposite is true, also. Perigo, for instance, back when he was a communist, was the same kind of bully he is now. Becoming an Objectivist did not change his actions or improve his character. The words changed, but the garbage he does still stinks.

You know, I'll take "benevolently wishful" evaluation when I see good character. It's got a nice ring to it...

Building a good character (or changing your character) is as much of a choice as adopting (or maintaining) world-view ideas is. I think it's a good thing to mention it at times when you see it.

btw - I think you have good character, too.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

In closing, your phrase "he would become a top-notch independent Objectivist" is…benevolently wishful.

Dennis,

That could be true. I'm willing to admit it's an opinion. But my opinion is based on my Doctorate Degree from Screw U. I worked hard for that degree and paid my dues...

I sense a person of good character with Adonis.

This is different than the time I cut a lot of slack for the dude who spammed OL with plagiarized posts. I was trying to change that guy back then (an experiment in moral learning) and boy, did I misfire!

I have no wish to change Adonis, nor be changed by him. I merely wish to interact with him.

There are no guarantees, of course, but in my experience, people who are serene with their world view like he has expressed rarely (almost never) change that manner of being if their world view changes. They continue in serenity and not wishing to harm others.

Interestingly enough, the opposite is true, also. Perigo, for instance, back when he was a communist, was the same kind of bully he is now. Becoming an Objectivist did not change his actions or improve his character. The words changed, but the garbage he does still stinks.

You know, I'll take "benevolently wishful" evaluation when I see good character. It's got a nice ring to it...

Building a good character (or changing your character) is as much of a choice as adopting (or maintaining) world-view ideas is. I think it's a good thing to mention it at times when you see it.

btw - I think you have good character, too.

Michael

Thank you Michael, I appreciate your kind words, and your faith.

Ultimately I have to say, I have no interest whatsoever of leaving my faith, nor becoming an objectivist. But I would never say no to learning about other ideas and comparing them to my own. It's the only way to really understand life.

So I suppose we're quite similar that way.

[merjet]

Regarding primacy of consciousness, a person who subscribes to it doesn't need to use it all the time. Compartmentalizing is somewhat common, e.g. the scientist who uses the primacy of existence at work but the primacy of consciousness regarding religious matters.

I've been puzzling over the implications of this comment since I read it last night, because I don't understand the underlying premise. Could someone please enlighten me?

What I don't understand is how religion can be seen as representing "primacy of consciousness". There are two basic religious views, both of which assert the primacy of existence: {snip}

I used "primacy of consciousness" and "primacy of existence" the way Ayn Rand did here. Neither of the two basic religious views you gave is "primacy of existence".

Edited January 13, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

So the reason why you have a problem with it, is because he fears being punished by God? I'm sorry, but I don't see why that's an issue. Most people don't drive through red lights because they fear being charged with doing so by the police and being punished for their crime by having their license taken away.

That is fear and submission to another human being.

All we fear and submit to is The Creator.

I pitied the man, who feared the wrath of a god. Living in permanent fear of doing something wrong without knowing how the wrath of this being looks like.

Nor did he question the demand in the surah that the wife be "devoutly obedient".

To whom are wives devoutly obedient?

To their husbands. No need to ask if you have read surah 4/(34), is there?

I'm sorry I don't understand? What laws don't exist?

Laws where the man automatically has to be the provider for the woman. Nor could where I live, a wife demand money from her husband for breastfeeding.

I would have to check, but I believe Adonis has answered questions, not preached. If folks don't like his answers, don't ask the questions. I don't think he's going to change, but I don't think he is seeking converts to Islam.

Michael

Why not ask questions? Inquiry is the mother of truth.

He's trying to save the world:

It's not that I'm being paid to do this Brant, it's just that I'm trying to save the world and humanity from a far greater cost in the future if this cycle of hate and ignorance continues.

Imo the only thing which can be saved by AV's erroneous thinking based on a false premise (claiming a supernatural being to exist who has given people "laws") is his own illusion.

View PostXray, on 10 January 2010 - 07:21 AM, said:

So what is left, Adonis? Check your premises: Mere belief based on no evidence whatsoever is left. So you or other believers can quote from their alleged 'divinely inspired' sources all they like, it is of no relevance to a person rejecting attempts to present subjective beliefs as objective reality.

AV: I see.. Okay.. So eyewitnesses of those events, the miracles and those events who wrote down their experiences aren't good enough for you? If not that's okay, I just would like to know.

See above. I'interested in analyzing ideological thought systems, and checking the premises of your system (as well as that of everyone claiming the existence of a god who gave people laws) reveals the above mentioned thinking error.

So whether four eyewitnesses or four hundred can testify to behavior regarded as 'immoral' in the eyes of a "god" is of no relevance since there exists no evidence of any "god" ever having given humans any "laws" on anything.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

And how can anyone produce witnesses to no God if there is no God?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

And how can anyone produce witnesses to no God if there is no God?

--Brant

The only way to show non-existence is to show that the assumption of existence leads to a logical contradiction.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

I pitied the man, who feared the wrath of a god. Living in permanent fear of doing something wrong without knowing how the wrath of this being looks like.

I see.. So you prefer mankind fears absolutely no consequences at all for their actions?

To their husbands. No need to ask if you have read surah 4/(34), is there?

Xray, again. There IS a need to ask, please stop looking at a translation of a verse and thinking that you understand its meaning. Your assumptions make you look uneducated.

The word used has the root: ﻕ-ن-ﺕ

This means, devoutly obedient to God. Not to her husband.

Nowhere in the Qur'an is it used in the context that this type of obedience could be attributed to anything but God and His Messenger.

Laws where the man automatically has to be the provider for the woman. Nor could where I live, a wife demand money from her husband for breastfeeding.

Well I'm sorry to hear that women in your country don't get as many rights as they should.

[BaalChatzaf]

Well I'm sorry to hear that women in your country don't get as many rights as they should.

They get more rights than your brothers in the Middle East give them. At least our women don't have to wear burlap sacks over their heads.

In addition our women don't have to shave their upper lip.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

They get more rights than your brothers in the Middle East give them. At least our women don't have to wear burlap sacks over their heads.

In addition our women don't have to shave their upper lip.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am the biggest critic of the way the Mid East is after having lived there and seen it for myself.

It's completely unislamic. Don't attribute that to me nor my beliefs.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[BaalChatzaf]

They get more rights than your brothers in the Middle East give them. At least our women don't have to wear burlap sacks over their heads.

In addition our women don't have to shave their upper lip.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am the biggest critic of the way the Mid East is after having lived there and seen it for myself.

It's completely unislamic. Don't attribute that to me nor my beliefs.

See:

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

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

Here's a great interview with Dr. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad of the Minaret of Freedom Institute in the US regarding Islam, Muhammad, Libertarianism, Economics etc. I think you might like this if you're trying to understand some of the points that I'm getting across regarding Islam's link to these subjects.

I really like this Dr Imad ad-Dean Ahmad. He seems quite educated regarding Islam and I'd love to get the chance to help him in his mission to change the Muslim world.

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceeI6p_fRw8&feature=related

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_yi8bSpQBo&feature=related

Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kUci_iEBC4&feature=related

Part 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-BueB6Do-8

[Xray]

I pitied the man, who feared the wrath of a god. Living in permanent fear of doing something wrong without knowing how the wrath of this being looks like.

I see.. So you prefer mankind fears absolutely no consequences at all for their actions?

It is a myth that not believing in any supernatural punishing, revengeful being will lead to an 'anything goes' attitude. As a teacher, educating my children to become independent thinkers who take responsibility for their own actions is of high value to me. Empathy and caring are also essential values to me.

Adonis Vlahos: Xray, again. There IS a need to ask, please stop looking at a translation of a verse and thinking that you understand its meaning. Your assumptions make you look uneducated.

Take a closer look: The surah regulates male-female relationships. The husand is given the right to control 'rebellious' wives. The rebellious woman is seen as a person who does not accept the hierarchy allegedly "commanded" by a "god".

Bottom line: the wife who is obedient to "the god" must be obedient to her husband because it is "god's will". This locks the ideological cage.

Nowhere in the Qur'an is it used in the context that this type of obedience could be attributed to anything but God and His Messenger.

The real obedience issue is always with finite individuals in power. "It is god's will that you do this or that" - few phrases have been more abused in the history of mankind to justify the most atrococious crimes against humans.

The word used has the root: ﻕ-ن-ﺕ

...

This means, devoutly obedient to God. Not to her husband.

Strange, since the authorized English translation version (which I just looked up) does not use the words "devoutly obedient" at all. How good is your knowledge of Arabic? Please correct me if my memory is not accurate on this, but it is somewhere in the back of my mind that you wrote (either here or at SoloP) that it was only limited.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Xray

[Libertarian Muslim]

It is a myth that not believing in any supernatural punishing, revengeful being will lead to an 'anything goes' attitude. As a teacher, educating my children to become independent thinkers who take responsibility for their own actions is of high value to me. Empathy and caring are also essential values to me.

Yes, sure..

We do believe in taking responsibility for our actions, that is why when people believe that they will be held accountable for their bad deeds in the next life, even if they escape accountability in this life it causes those who are mindful of such a punishment to reconsider their decisions.

I went and lived in Syria and saw the results of that. Whilst I don't agree with everything that I saw there, I did see an amazingly beautiful and spiritual people, both Muslims and Christians who wouldn't harm another soul and aside from taxi drivers trying to cheat you, crime is basically non existent there.

Take a closer look: The surah regulates male-female relationships. The husand is given the right to control 'rebellious' wives. The rebellious woman is seen as a person who does not accept the hierarchy allegedly "commanded" by a "god".

Yes, it regulates it in the sense where it puts the majority of the burden on men and basically none on the women. It sets a family structure. But it doesn't allow a man to physically 'control' his rebellious wife nor does it allow him to be a tyrant over her.

Bottom line: the wife who is obedient to "the god" must be obedient to her husband because it is "god's will". This locks the ideological cage.

Are you saying that Islam says that a woman must listen to her husband, no matter what he says?

I also don't think you understand the meaning of God's will.. EVERYTHING that happens is God's Will.

The real obedience issue is always with finite individuals in power. "It is god's will that you do this or that" - few phrases have been more abused in the history of mankind to justify the most atrococious crimes against humans.

If people have the intent and lust for blood they'll use any excuse they can find.. Even objectivism and if y

Strange, since the authorized English translation version (which I just looked up) does not use the words "devoutly obedient" at all. How good is your knowledge of Arabic? Please correct me if my memory is not accurate on this, but it is somewhere in the back of my mind that you wrote (either here or at SoloP) that it was only limited.

My Arabic is limited yes, but it's certainly good enough to read in Arabic.

My English is also good enough to find where scholars have talked about this.

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّلِحَتُ قَنِتَتٌ حَفِظَتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا ‎

Now let's look at the word in question:

قَنِتَتٌ

The root of this word is

ﻕ-ن-ﺕ

This means, and has only ever meant a type of devout obedience.. That which is to God. Nowhere in the Qur'an has it ever been used other than in the sense of devout obedience to God and His Blessed Prophets, peace be upon them.

I mean it's pretty obvious by the verse what it's talking about. Let's finish the actual sentence off, it says:

...Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. ..

It's referring to a woman being devoutly obedient to God by guarding what God would have her guard when her husband is away.

[Xray]

Adonis Vlahos: I went and lived in Syria and saw the results of that. Whilst I don't agree with everything that I saw there, I did see an amazingly beautiful and spiritual people, both Muslims and Christians who wouldn't harm another soul and aside from taxi drivers trying to cheat you, crime is basically non existent there.

This does not say much. Nazi Germany had a low official crime rate too ...

How old were you when you lived in Syria, Adonis, and how long did you live there? Were you in a position at all to get insight into what is really going on behind the scenes?

I believe you see the political situation in Syria too rose-colored. Here is some reality behind the facade:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/syria/page.do?id=1011249

AV: Are you saying that Islam says that a woman must listen to her husband, no matter what he says?

No. For the husband sits in the same ideological cage since he can only demand of her what "God's will" allows.

So if he should ask her e. g. to mix him a Martini, she doesn't have to listen since drinking alcohol is on the verboten list for Muslims.

AV: Now let's look at the word in question:

قَنِتَتٌ

The root of this word is

ﻕ-ن-ﺕ

It's referring to a woman being devoutly obedient to God by guarding what God would have her guard when her husband is away.

You come across to me as both idealistic and naive here, but this may be due to your young age.

When I googled the Arabic word, I got an interesting link to a website maintained by ex-Muslims which might give you some insight:

http://www.islam-watch.org/Kammuna/Beating-Women-Sanctioned-By-Allah-Prophet.htm

What are my feelings on the stonings in the videos? I feel upset because I don't for a second believe that the criteria was met within Islamic law for that punishment to take place.

So that's why you feeel upset. Not at the stoning as such it seems.

But suppose the people stoned did actually commit the sexual acts for which they were condemned, what would be your feelings then when seeing the videos? Would you feel compassion, empathy, shock and outrage at the sheer horror of watching a person cruelly put to death? Or wouldn't you?

AV:

I am a slave to the Creator, I don't deny it. But God is the only being thing I submit to and I do so as I believe God wishes me to do so. As I said, I'm not here to debate the existence of God.

Adonis,

You might be surprised, but this is very close to the Objectivist view.

Here is an interesting video of a slave to the Creator of Objectivism. Rand chose this man (Leonard Peikoff) as her intellectual heir, and I believe she knew exactly what she was doing: for she knew Peikoff was the type who would fight tooth and nail to preserve the original orthodox belief against reformers. So from her perspective, Rand made the 'proper' decision.

Peikoff is a fundamentalist Objectivist; his psychological make-up reminds me of fundamentalist preachers of faith delivering sermons of hate against the "enemy":

Adonis, should you switch to Objectvism, imo you are basically exchanging one belief for another. Rand merely gave "God" another name: "Man". For it is "Man" who is Rand's god - a super-hero type of human being actually.

I also don't think you understand the meaning of God's will.. EVERYTHING that happens is God's Will.

Well, if that is the case, crimes are also "God's will".

Even within your own fallacious thought system, you fall into traps without realizing it. Like the determinist trap above where you claim: "EVERYTHING that happens is God's will". This reduces humans to puppets of a transcendent string puller.

Adonis, your eloquence doesn't erase the fundamental thinking disorder which confuses subjective belief with objective reality.

For you are not someone speculating that "a god may exist" or saying "I believe a god exists", no - you are convinced that a god does exist, and that this god wants people to do this or that ("God's will").

You claim that what you believe is true without being able to provide any evidence. Herein lies the error in your premise.

The god creature cannot be defined, lacks identity, and the attributes ascribed to it by religionists are a mess of contradictions.

The Koran does not qualitfy as evidence of the existence of a god. Books are written by a human beings. Do you know of an infallible human being?

"But the book is divinely inspired!", the believers say. "How do you know?", I ask them back, "Because their writers said so?"

So, there goes the Koran or the Bible or whatever other 'holy' book as "evidence". Bringing the "divine" down to earth by asking these questions exposes the whole thing as the fallacy it is.

As long as you don't realize this, you will stay caught in this ideological cage from which you can only get out by jettisoning the whole belief, not just parts.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I wonder if "God" talks directly to some Muslims the way he talks to some Christians--Joan of Arc, for instance.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

I wonder if "God" talks directly to some Muslims the way he talks to some Christians--Joan of Arc, for instance.

--Brant

He uses Archangels, Gabriel gave Muhammad the Koran for instance.

[Robert Campbell]

Jeffrey,

The reason Rand considered both the Western theological religions and the major Eastern religions to be "primacy of consciousness" is that she considered any sort of supernaturalism (any claim that the natural world was made by, is controlled by, is pervaded by, or harbors superpowerful, disembodied superintelligences) to be a variant of the primacy of consciousness.

She also considered any claim that reality is basically unknowable to be dependent on the primacy of consciousness, because on the primacy of existence view, the basic business of mind or consciousness is to know what exists. If, say, the human mind can't know what is really there, either it is so defective in its functioning as not to qualify as a consciousness, or its basic business is something other than knowing what exists

Robert Campbell