Islam

[Leonid]

Adonis "When it's time for war then people must fight."

"Bukhari:"...But after this they become apostates and renounced Islam and stole the camels...Then the Prophet ordered their hands and their feet to be cut off as punishment for theft, and their eyes to be pulled out. But the Prophet did not stop the bleeding, and they died."

William Muir sums up some of the other atrocities recounted-it must be borne in mind, by impeccable Muslim authorities such as Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari: "Magnanimity or moderation is nowhere discernible as features in the conduct of Muhammad... Sentence of exile (to Germany?-Leonid) was enforced by Muhammad with rigorous severity on two whole Jewish tribes (All Zionists-Leonid) at al Madina; and of a third , likewise his neighbors, the women and children were sold into distant captivity, while the men, amounting to several hundreds, were butchered in cold blood before his eyes. "(Why I am not a Muslim-by Ibn Warraq pg 345-6).

Great leader of the nation and the role model. Military genius! Pity nobody learns Muhammad’s glorious military tactics of cutting limbs and killing the prisoners of war in each and every military academy. That would make people invincible.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

King David and many others from ancient times revered by Jews carried out atrocities when fighting. So what?

Military geniuses?

(I really hate double standards.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Feelings" has a different meaning here than when you condemned Michaels use of the word "feelings"? Or is there some official "O"bjectivist meaning that is true through all times and places...you know like always.

Adam,

I have noticed this pattern in Leonid's writing, also. He applies to feelings the same epistemological oversimplification he applies to other issues.

Let's use Objectivist jargon for this.

Kneejerk.

He learned the phrase, "Feelings are not tools of cognition," then uses this as a part of his litany of Objectivist insults (right alongside "evading"). If you say, "I have a feeling" to express a speculation, out pops, "Feelings are not tools of cognition." If he disagrees with you, he says you don't think about something because you are evading because you are emotion-driven, then out pops "Feelings are not tools of cognition."

Kneejerk.

The weird part is that I truly believe a good part of his cognition, going from his posts, is emotion-driven. I mean on the epistemological level, not simply as value judgments. Pavlov kind of stuff. And it involves fear and hatred.

Kind of like an addiction to moral denunciation qua moral denunciation. Not to promote anything good. Just to get a fix. (I'm feeling terrible. Gotta get me some of that moral denunciation today. That way I can think I am superior to others and cover that dark hole inside me.)

Maybe I'm going too far... I only know Leonid from the forums. And Tony vouches for him. But I also know he is really quick to offend the person he is discussing things with if a person dares disagree with him over something. And he does it in that snarky presumptuous manner while getting what the person said all wrong I have grown to detest on Objectivist forums. Not to mention his massive derogatory oversimplifications.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Lastly, there's been a lot of misinformation created by the Ummayads regarding the age of that wife, but I can tell you for certain that regardless what hadiths the Ummayad's fabricated, they can't escape the facts. She wasn't 6 or 9. She was at least 10 years older and that's been proven.

Adonis,

How does one determine which ahadith are real and which are bogus?

In particular, which hadith collections are free of items that you claim were fabricated under the Umayyad Dynasty? And where are arguments against the credibility of these items presented?

Correct me here if I'm wrong, but weren't all extant hadith collections compiled at least 200 years after the death of Muhammad? I gather that greater care was taken to authenticate them than is the case with sayings attributed to Jesus in the New Testament, but less time had passed since the death of Jesus before the canonical gospels were compiled.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

King David and many others from ancient times revered by Jews carried out atrocities when fighting. So what?

Military geniuses?

(I really hate double standards.)

Michael,

You could go further if you wanted. Why, according to the Bible, did God's wrath descend upon King Saul, ultimately bringing about his downfall? Because the Lord commanded Saul to kill off every last living Amalekite, women and children included, and Saul couldn't bring himself to do that.

And ten or so years ago, moral development researchers in Israel presented a couple of particularly grisly bits from the book of Joshua (which is generally understood to sort of describe historical events, but attributes a drawn-out series of piecemeal conquests to one general). You know, like what happened to the city of Ai after it refused to surrender: Joshua and his troops stormed it and killed everybody in it. Killed all their domestic animals for good measure.

When teenagers were asked to evaluate a series of stories and say whether they thought the protagonist acted virtuously, morally, etc., a sizeable majority of the Jewish teenagers endorsed the acts attributed to Joshua.

Nonetheless, the Jewish religion has largely worked the imperialism and aggression out of its system, if only as an adaptation to being repeatedly stomped flat by the Romans and then spending centuries as the religion of a militarily powerless, dispersed minority.

It is in everyone's best interest for the Islamic religion to find ways to work the aggression and imperialism out of its system in a shorter time, under less dire circumstances. What isn't going to work is pretending that there isn't any aggression or imperialism to be worked out.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

"Feelings" has a different meaning here than when you condemned Michaels use of the word "feelings"? Or is there some official "O"bjectivist meaning that is true through all times and places...you know like always.

Adam,

I have noticed this pattern in Leonid's writing, also. He applies to feelings the same epistemological oversimplification he applies to other issues.

Let's use Objectivist jargon for this.

Kneejerk.

He learned the phrase, "Feelings are not tools of cognition," then uses this as a part of his litany of Objectivist insults (right alongside "evading"). If you say, "I have a feeling" to express a speculation, out pops, "Feelings are not tools of cognition." If he disagrees with you, he says you don't think about something because you are evading because you are emotion-driven, then out pops "Feelings are not tools of cognition."

Kneejerk.

The weird part is that I truly believe a good part of his cognition, going from his posts, is emotion-driven. I mean on the epistemological level, not simply as value judgments. Pavlov kind of stuff. And it involves fear and hatred.

Kind of like an addiction to moral denunciation qua moral denunciation. Not to promote anything good. Just to get a fix. (I'm feeling terrible. Gotta get me some of that moral denunciation today. That way I can think I am superior to others and cover that dark hole inside me.)

Maybe I'm going too far... I only know Leonid from the forums. And Tony vouches for him. But I also know he is really quick to offend the person he is discussing things with if a person dares disagree with him over something. And he does it in that snarky presumptuous manner while getting what the person said all wrong I have grown to detest on Objectivist forums. Not to mention his massive derogatory oversimplifications.

Michael

Michael:

Yep, and combined with a atrophied vestigial sense of humor, makes for some tedious arguments and discussions.

The banal and simplified condescension is just ineffective.

Sad.

I am glad I missed out on all those "O"bjectivist forums where that passed for argument.

Maybe he can learn that there are other ways to advance Ayn's ideas that are effective and enlightening.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

When teenagers were asked to evaluate a series of stories and say whether they thought the protagonist acted virtuously, morally, etc., a sizeable majority of the Jewish teenagers endorsed the acts attributed to Joshua.

I remember reading this story too, I think it appears in either Hitchens’ god is not Great or Dawkins The God Delusion. There was an extra detail though. They asked one group for their evaluation after changing the names to Chinese groups/geography. The other group was given the original biblical names (Joshua etc.). The results were completely different, when it was two unknown (thus abstract) groups killing each other they disapproved en masse, when it was known members on their ingroup (and history) they approved.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis "When it's time for war then people must fight."

"Bukhari:"...But after this they become apostates and renounced Islam and stole the camels...Then the Prophet ordered their hands and their feet to be cut off as punishment for theft, and their eyes to be pulled out. But the Prophet did not stop the bleeding, and they died."

William Muir sums up some of the other atrocities recounted-it must be borne in mind, by impeccable Muslim authorities such as Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari: "Magnanimity or moderation is nowhere discernible as features in the conduct of Muhammad... Sentence of exile (to Germany?-Leonid) was enforced by Muhammad with rigorous severity on two whole Jewish tribes (All Zionists-Leonid) at al Madina; and of a third , likewise his neighbors, the women and children were sold into distant captivity, while the men, amounting to several hundreds, were butchered in cold blood before his eyes. "(Why I am not a Muslim-by Ibn Warraq pg 345-6).

Great leader of the nation and the role model. Military genius! Pity nobody learns Muhammad’s glorious military tactics of cutting limbs and killing the prisoners of war in each and every military academy. That would make people invincible.

How dishonest can you get Leonid?

How about you put the whole facts up rather than just part of the story, those people who stole the camels had brutally harmed the camel herder had stuck hot irons in his eyes and then killed him. Therefore, when they were captured they were punished for highway robbery, torture and murder. That was a suitable punishment.

Those Jewish tribes were also not Zionists, do you know what happened with those Jewish tribes? The Tribe in particular that you're referring to that had the men executed? Have you even bothered to find out?

Please tell us the reasons for behind that Leonid, you're really quite selective in missing out on information aren't you? It's kind of disturbing...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is in everyone's best interest for the Islamic religion to find ways to work the aggression and imperialism out of its system in a shorter time, under less dire circumstances. What isn't going to to work is pretending that there isn't any aggression or imperialism to be worked out.

Robert,

If ever I were to formalize a mission statement for my interest in hostilities involving Islam, this goal would be an integral part of it.

Michael

[Leonid]

King David and many others from ancient times revered by Jews carried out atrocities when fighting. So what?

Military geniuses?

(I really hate double standards.)

Michael

See my post #19 above in regard to Judaism. There are no double standards. However I don't recall that King David killed hundreds of unarmed prisoners of war, or cut their limbs and watched them dying slowly. King Saul refused to kill war prisoners in spite direct order from Almighty himself and had been removed for this from his royal position by Prophet Samuel-that how David became a king.

BTW Don't you think that for the hater of hatred as you want to be percieved you use the word "hate" too much?

Edited March 13, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

Adonis "Please tell us the reasons for behind that Leonid, you're really quite selective in missing out on information aren't you? It's kind of disturbing..."

I use the information which is available to me. I also use reliable sources and provide references. Since you don't, I don't know what are your sources and how reliable they are. If you think that cutting limbs is suitable punishment then you conjure with the most backward and barbaric Islamic practice.

"Those Jewish tribes were also not Zionists, do you know what happened with those Jewish tribes? The Tribe in particular that you're referring to that had the men executed? Have you even bothered to find out? "

What a bizarre question! What happened to executed tribe? They had been executed, rendered dead of course. What happened to exiled tribe? They went to exile-as simply as that. There is no mystery.

Adonis:” How dishonest can you get Leonid?"

As much as Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari.

[Leonid]

"Feelings" has a different meaning here than when you condemned Michaels use of the word "feelings"? Or is there some official "O"bjectivist meaning that is true through all times and places...you know like always.

Adam,

I have noticed this pattern in Leonid's writing, also. He applies to feelings the same epistemological oversimplification he applies to other issues.

Let's use Objectivist jargon for this.

Kneejerk.

He learned the phrase, "Feelings are not tools of cognition," then uses this as a part of his litany of Objectivist insults (right alongside "evading"). If you say, "I have a feeling" to express a speculation, out pops, "Feelings are not tools of cognition." If he disagrees with you, he says you don't think about something because you are evading because you are emotion-driven, then out pops "Feelings are not tools of cognition."

Kneejerk.

The weird part is that I truly believe a good part of his cognition, going from his posts, is emotion-driven. I mean on the epistemological level, not simply as value judgments. Pavlov kind of stuff. And it involves fear and hatred.

Kind of like an addiction to moral denunciation qua moral denunciation. Not to promote anything good. Just to get a fix. (I'm feeling terrible. Gotta get me some of that moral denunciation today. That way I can think I am superior to others and cover that dark hole inside me.)

Maybe I'm going too far... I only know Leonid from the forums. And Tony vouches for him. But I also know he is really quick to offend the person he is discussing things with if a person dares disagree with him over something. And he does it in that snarky presumptuous manner while getting what the person said all wrong I have grown to detest on Objectivist forums. Not to mention his massive derogatory oversimplifications.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis "Please tell us the reasons for behind that Leonid, you're really quite selective in missing out on information aren't you? It's kind of disturbing..."

I use the information which is available to me. I also use reliable sources and provide references. Since you don't, I don't know what are your sources and how reliable they are. If you think that cutting limbs is suitable punishment then you conjure with the most backward and barbaric Islamic practice.

"Those Jewish tribes were also not Zionists, do you know what happened with those Jewish tribes? The Tribe in particular that you're referring to that had the men executed? Have you even bothered to find out? "

What a bizarre question! What happened to executed tribe? They had been executed, rendered dead of course. What happened to exiled tribe? They went to exile-as simply as that. There is no mystery.

Adonis:” How dishonest can you get Leonid?"

As much as Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari.

Leonid you didn't go into the reasons why those events happened.. Do you even know the reasons? That is how your being selective.. You don't tell the full story.. So how about you do that.. Tell us the situations and events that led up to those events..

[Selene]

It is in everyone's best interest for the Islamic religion to find ways to work the aggression and imperialism out of its system in a shorter time, under less dire circumstances. What isn't going to to work is pretending that there isn't any aggression or imperialism to be worked out.

Robert,

If ever I were to formalize a mission statement for my interest in hostilities involving Islam, this goal would be an integral part of it.

Michael

Robert and Michael:

This is my sixth pillar argument...

The allusions and use of the pillars of Islam could definitely use that one as an addition.

"The Five Pillars of Islam (Arabic: أركان الإسلام) is the term given to the five duties incumbent on every Muslim. These duties are Shahadah (profession of faith), Salat (prayers), Zakat (giving of alms), Sawm (fasting, specifically during Ramadan) and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). These five practices are essential to Muslims."

Completely agree and would like to hear whether Adonis is receptive to that addition.

Adam

[Leonid]

"Feelings" has a different meaning here than when you condemned Michaels use of the word "feelings"? Or is there some official "O"bjectivist meaning that is true through all times and places...you know like always.

Adam,

I have noticed this pattern in Leonid's writing, also. He applies to feelings the same epistemological oversimplification he applies to other issues.

Let's use Objectivist jargon for this.

Kneejerk.

He learned the phrase, "Feelings are not tools of cognition," then uses this as a part of his litany of Objectivist insults (right alongside "evading"). If you say, "I have a feeling" to express a speculation, out pops, "Feelings are not tools of cognition." If he disagrees with you, he says you don't think about something because you are evading because you are emotion-driven, then out pops "Feelings are not tools of cognition."

Kneejerk.

The weird part is that I truly believe a good part of his cognition, going from his posts, is emotion-driven. I mean on the epistemological level, not simply as value judgments. Pavlov kind of stuff. And it involves fear and hatred.

Kind of like an addiction to moral denunciation qua moral denunciation. Not to promote anything good. Just to get a fix. (I'm feeling terrible. Gotta get me some of that moral denunciation today. That way I can think I am superior to others and cover that dark hole inside me.)

Maybe I'm going too far... I only know Leonid from the forums. And Tony vouches for him. But I also know he is really quick to offend the person he is discussing things with if a person dares disagree with him over something. And he does it in that snarky presumptuous manner while getting what the person said all wrong I have grown to detest on Objectivist forums. Not to mention his massive derogatory oversimplifications.

Michael

Michael, I didn't realize that in addition to your many qualities you are also a scholar of psychophysiology, especially of the Pavlov's kind. However after careful study of your analysis I found that it's lacking of factual evidence. Therefore I regard it as derogatory oversimplification and simple exhibition of total ignorance of Pavlov's theory as well as of my motives. Your conclusions about my or Adonis' characters are pity results of the cheap psychologizing. As Rand observed "A man’s moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements and his conscious convictions—not on the basis of inferences (usually, spurious) about his subconscious." (“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing,’” The Objectivist, March 1971, 5.) So your inferences about me as driven by fear and hatred and about Adonis as honorable man with noble intentions (sic!) don't worth the time you wasted to type and post. By self-admission you do use your feelings to form your concepts about me or Adonis while you totally disregard explicitly expressed ideas and facts. For the proof just re-read your post above.

In regard to moral denunciation-you are the last person who should make such a statement. You substitute moral judgment by psychologizing, but by self-admission you refused to take moral stand in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like Humpty Dumpty you prefer to sit on the moral wall. It's OK with me, but in this awkward and unstable position you have no right to preach about moral denunciation. Soon or later you'll fall-and most probably to the wrong side of the wall. And nobody would be able to put you together again. “Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism..." (“How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”

The Virtue of Selfishness, 71.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So in other words, maybe I can conclude that... er... emotions are not tools of cognition?

Michael

[Leonid]

Adonis " You don't tell the full story.. So how about you do that.. Tell us the situations and events that led up to those events.. "

If I will tell the whole story you will dismiss it as Zionist propaganda and MSK will dismiss my sources as biased. Why don't you tell it? After all you're the scholar of Islam.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Leonid

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis " You don't tell the full story.. So how about you do that.. Tell us the situations and events that led up to those events.. "

If I will tell the whole story you will dismiss it as Zionist propaganda and MSK will dismiss my sources as biased. Why don't you tell it? After all you're the scholar of Islam.

I never claimed to be a scholar and I wont dismiss it as zionist propaganda.. I will correct it if you're wrong though..

Here, I'll make it easy for you, tell us the story of the tribe whose adult men were executed and the and women that were sold into slavery.. What were the events that led up to this event taking place?

[Libertarian Muslim]

Robert and Michael:

This is my sixth pillar argument...

The allusions and use of the pillars of Islam could definitely use that one as an addition.

"The Five Pillars of Islam (Arabic: أركان الإسلام) is the term given to the five duties incumbent on every Muslim. These duties are Shahadah (profession of faith), Salat (prayers), Zakat (giving of alms), Sawm (fasting, specifically during Ramadan) and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). These five practices are essential to Muslims."

Completely agree and would like to hear whether Adonis is receptive to that addition.

Adam

Sorry, what exactly is it that you would like to hear what I'm receptive on? I haven't been following? What sixth pillar?

[Selene]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on 13 March 2010 - 12:58 PM, said:

Robert Campbell, on 13 March 2010 - 10:45 AM, said:

It is in everyone's best interest for the Islamic religion to find ways to work the aggression and imperialism out of its system in a shorter time, under less dire circumstances. What isn't going to to work is pretending that there isn't any aggression or imperialism to be worked out.

Robert,

If ever I were to formalize a mission statement for my interest in hostilities involving Islam, this goal would be an integral part of it.

Michael

Robert and Michael:

This is my sixth pillar argument...

The allusions and use of the pillars of Islam could definitely use that one as an addition.

"The Five Pillars of Islam (Arabic: أركان الإسلام) is the term given to the five duties incumbent on every Muslim. These duties are Shahadah (profession of faith), Salat (prayers), Zakat (giving of alms), Sawm (fasting, specifically during Ramadan) and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). These five practices are essential to Muslims."

Completely agree and would like to hear whether Adonis is receptive to that addition.

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on 13 March 2010 - 12:58 PM, said:

Robert Campbell, on 13 March 2010 - 10:45 AM, said:

It is in everyone's best interest for the Islamic religion to find ways to work the aggression and imperialism out of its system in a shorter time, under less dire circumstances. What isn't going to to work is pretending that there isn't any aggression or imperialism to be worked out.

Robert,

If ever I were to formalize a mission statement for my interest in hostilities involving Islam, this goal would be an integral part of it.

Michael

Robert and Michael:

This is my sixth pillar argument...

The allusions and use of the pillars of Islam could definitely use that one as an addition.

"The Five Pillars of Islam (Arabic: أركان الإسلام) is the term given to the five duties incumbent on every Muslim. These duties are Shahadah (profession of faith), Salat (prayers), Zakat (giving of alms), Sawm (fasting, specifically during Ramadan) and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). These five practices are essential to Muslims."

Completely agree and would like to hear whether Adonis is receptive to that addition.

Adam

What imperialism and aggression in Islam are you referring to exactly? Islam forbids both transgression and oppression and states quite clearly that those who do so are the enemies of God.

There's no need to add anything.. It's already there.. It's just a matter of bringing back original Islamic teachings and practice.

[Selene]

Adonis:

I accept that your understanding is that it is "...already there.", at least as you perceive Islam.

I would get the same argument from a Christian, Protestant, Catholic, Jew or Wiccan.

As I understand your position:

1) Islam is perfect as it stands today, it just has to be applied;

Therefore, my question is:

2) Would the initiation of physical force by a Muslim state have penalties imposed on that state by all other peaceful Muslim states in the world?

3) If there would be penalties, what might they look like?

Thanks.

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis:

I accept that your understanding is that it is "...already there.", at least as you perceive Islam.

I would get the same argument from a Christian, Protestant, Catholic, Jew or Wiccan.

As I understand your position:

1) Islam is perfect as it stands today, it just has to be applied;

Therefore, my question is:

2) Would the initiation of physical force by a Muslim state have penalties imposed on that state by all other peaceful Muslim states in the world?

3) If there would be penalties, what might they look like?

Thanks.

Adam

I would like to clarify first that there currently is no state that properly adheres to the Islamic way of administrating itself.

Now regarding your question.

God states in the Qur'an:

"O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (them ye are). So follow not passion lest ye lapse (from truth) and if ye lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is ever Informed of what ye do."(Qur'an 4:135)

The Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him once said:

"A person should help his brother, whether he is an oppressor or is being oppressed. If he is the oppressor, he should prevent him from continuing his oppression, for that is helping him. If he is being oppressed, he should be helped to stop the oppression against him."

As Muslims we are obligated to stop injustice and oppression, even if it is our own family members perpetrating such crimes. If after diplomacy to stop such attacks the state in question were to continue transgressing and oppressing against other states it would then become obligatory on the Islamic State to intervene and if necessary, even fight the aggressor state until they stop and compensate the victims of these crimes.

[Selene]

Adonis:

Fair enough.

Another question that has been addressed alludes to how you represent libertarianism to your Muslim networks. For example, when you are at your Mosque, how do you incorporate libertarian concepts into the Qur'anic discussions that you are engaged in as part of your religion.

I know that I have worked Ayn's ideas into any conversation. I have gotten telemarketers to read Atlas Shrugged and kept some of them as friends.

Adam

Edited March 14, 2010 by Selene

[Robert Campbell]

What imperialism and aggression in Islam are you referring to exactly? Islam forbids both transgression and oppression and states quite clearly that those who do so are the enemies of God.

There's no need to add anything.. It's already there.. It's just a matter of bringing back original Islamic teachings and practice.

Adonis,

How about, for instance, Qur'an 9:5 and 9:29?

I presume these are original Islamic teachings, and that they were meant as guides to original Islamic practice.

Robert Campbell

PS. As a reminder, I also asked you, upthread, how one goes about distinguishing bogus ahadith, which you say were planted by the Umayyad Dynasty, from genuine sayings of Muhammad and genuine accounts of what he and his companions did.