Libertarian Muslim

You have a very short memory.. It's very typical of people like yourself.. You see the first thing to affect yourselves as being the beginning of a conflict or problem yet don't care about how your own government behaves in the first place to instigate the act.. It's just like the stupidity of Rudy Juliani and the Bush administration to state that it was Al Qaeda's hate for US freedoms that caused them to attack the US, rather than the CIA's findings and Al Qaeda's own admission that the fact that the US was financing tyrannical dictators and monarchs whilst also maintaining a US military base on holy land as being the reasons for it. You live in a delusional world.. You would be foolish to state this belonged with the Iranian Hostage Crisis.. The fact is that the real aggressor here was the US and the British when in the 1950's they sent their secret intelligent services to go in and commit acts of terrorism bombing mosques and markets and then overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and installed a monarchy to rule the people and had interfered in Iran's affairs ever since, including trying to overthrow the Iranian government after the revolution.. That is definitely an act of of war and such acts of war are still committed today whilst the US Government funds terrorist groups like Jundullah who've been responsible for countless attacks in Iran on mosques and government buildings.. The Iranians are not stupid.. The US, a country only a few hundred years old acts like an adolescent street thug in it's behavior towards the much older Persia that has been in existence for thousands of years.. The Iranians are patient and wise in their foreign policy actions, they know how to play the game and they're an incredibly intelligent people.. That is precisely why the Iranians were smart enough during the Algerian Accords to force the US Government to agree to the following statement to get the release of the hostages.. The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs. By breaking the conditions of the Algiers Accords as the US has done, and did so very quickly the US has now put itself in a very sticky situation.. Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding, your arguments of self defense are incorrect and unfounded.. In addition to that the president is only allowed to authorize military action when there is a fleeting threat to the US, meaning that the threat is so imminent that if he didn't give the order right now, the country would be attacked and even then, there would still be oversight after it occurred.. In any other situation, including after an attack has been committed against the USA the President is supposed to adhere to what Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution states and that is that Congress alone has the authority to 'To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;'. This is exactly what happened in World War Two, the Congress and NOT the President made the declaration of war. Since then, no declaration of war has been made by the US, meaning every war it has been in since has been illegal under the US Constitution..

Adam Chesser is a perfect example of what I'm referring to. In his case he may have had some other issues happen in his life that led him to this immense imbalance..

I'm sorry if you find it hard to comprehend, but the fact is that unless the nation fulfills the criteria set within the Qur'an and Sunnah properly then they aren't Islamic States, no matter how much they espouse to be... Just like the US is not a real capitalist country anymore.. Wow, the filth that you spill out.. You seem a bit obsessed with such tastes.. It is not abnormal for new Muslims (and those who were born as Muslim but not really raised in an 'Islamic household')to adopt some radical ideas and even to go and fight in some cases.. Learning a whole new belief system is very difficult and a part of the process for many, including myself is to put a wall up around yourself that allows you to process the information slowly.. Unfortunately it gives you a very limited view on Islam, dictated by black and white absolutism which leads many down extreme tracts.. The majority of new Muslims eventually find balance throughout this process of growing up and understanding however there are those who simply get too caught up in such ways of thinking that they never change or they find a group of people who also think the same and they keep encouraging each other.. This is an issue, and the Muslim community is aware about it.. That's why most Muslim communities are starting programs for new Muslims to guide them towards achieving that balance without having to go through a lot of the headaches.. I myself was quite radical at one stage of my life and to be frank, it could have gone either way.. However, I was blessed with many experiences throughout my life that taught me that these people teaching me those things could not be trusted and Islam was not the absolutist, black and white, judgmental and extreme ideology that others were leading me through and I separated from them and found my own path.. See, again.. Where are you looking? First of all, which brothers are you referring to? Are all of my Muslim brothers and sisters engaged in warfare against the West? Absolutely not.. Out of 1.5 billion Muslims, the amount of them that would be engaged in extremist activities like Al Qaeda or the Taliban would number in the thousands, that's an incredibly small number and is certainly not representative of us. In addition to that, there are Muslims who go out and try and preach directly to the Muslims who are at risk in places like Pakistan where proper Islamic teachings are not available and groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda can easily indoctrinate and brainwash the civilian population. I hate any imperialism, not just Western.. I believe all people have the right to choose for themselves their own destiny rather than have it dictated to them by foreigners.. In fact, isn't that what a large part of the US War of Independence was about? See, this here really indicates what type of person you are, you act more on emotions like hate and allow them to dictate the way you lead your life.. That prevents you from learning and gaining a better understanding as to what you are against.. The fact is that he wasn't a camel thief nor was he married to a 9 year old..

Hmmm again, this is a mistake many people make.. Blackhorse, there are no 'Islamic States' around today.. Many may claim to be but that doesn't grant them the status.. For example.. If I start calling myself, Dr Adonis MD, does it mean that I am now qualified to start treating the sick? Surely the fact that I have adopted the Dr. and MD onto my name now qualifies me to do so right? Wrong.. To be a physician I have to fulfill a certain criteria of learning and examination etc and then I will be qualified to do so.. It's the same with an Islamic State as mandated by Islamic doctrine, just because these countries claim to be Islamic States or Islamic nations and claim to be basing their laws on Qur'anic laws, it doesn't mean that they're actually following Islamic law, they may feel they are following their interpretation of such but the fact is that they simply don't understand the correct procedures and laws that were adhered to by the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.. The question is, where have you looked Blackhorse? Certainly you won't find any of the beauty of Islam within the anti-Islam websites.. Just as I won't find anything good about Objectivism in anti-Objectivism websites.. Have you ever studied anything about Islamic philosophy? I'm sure if you did, you'd find that it has influenced a great many Western thinkers including John Locke. What specific beliefs are you referring to? You're making a very big statement there so I wonder if you'd back it up?

Exactly, whilst I do believe that the majority of Muslims are ignorant to Islam's real connection towards ideologies such as Libertarianism due to their dumbing down over more than a thousand years of oppressive and monarchs and dictators, I do also know that very few espouse hatred for different beliefs and ideologies.. Yes, most Muslims despise imperialism and occupations, we all do.. Most Muslims also felt very insulted by the cartoon incidents where under the guise of 'free speech' cartoonists decided to draw very derogatory depictions of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. But the fact is, despite the media's excessive coverage of such incidents and blowing it out of proportion, out of 1.5 billion Muslims, very few numbering in their thousands actually rioted or harmed anyone for this.. That's not even 1% of our population yet it was portrayed as if all of us were.. The fact is that instead of rioting, most Muslims expressed their disgust with their wallets and there were huge boycotts of Danish goods within the Muslim world which did indeed harm the Danish economy. In my opinion however, even the boycotts were an unnecessary reaction and instead this event should have first been seen as a perfect time to engage in frank, open dialogue and discourse about the Islam in a peaceful manner to show the beauty of Islam. If this had been done, a better relationship between the Muslim world and Europe could have been established and the next time a cartoonist or movie maker decided to try an incite a reaction with their work then the rest of Europe would have seen them not of the bastions of freedom of speech that they have been portrayed as and instead for the hatemongers that they really are. I was born and raised in Australia and lived most of my life there except for a short stint in New Zealand in 2006. In 2008 I received a scholarship to study Arabic at the University of Qatar. They seemed however, to be a misunderstanding as I was put into a beginners class with people who had been studying Arabic for a two years at university whereas I did not even know the alphabet. I exited the course early and started working for a renowned interfaith organisation by the name of The Doha International Center for Interfaith Dialogue. I worked for this organization for a few months as a Public Relations Officer and Interfaith Worker. I quickly learned that most people within the organization were not as sincere as I had initially hoped about creating change and in addition to that found some discrepancies with some of the money that was flowing and decided that I would make my stay within the organization a short one. I was then requested to assist someone who was from a very well known family in the US as he'd spent most of his life after the age of 12 in prison and needed to get his life on track. So I got us both jobs teaching English in Syria and we both started working there.. It didn't go as well as I'd anticipated with this person so after a few of months we went our separate ways. I stayed in Syria and continued working and doing some studies in Islam and after 9 months I got sick of the BS that I saw there including the lack of freedom and the secret police following me around so I left and returned to New Zealand to study in December 09 where I've been ever since. In regards to your friend, well the truth is that one of the most important aspects of Islam is the way you treat other people, not harming those who are not trying to harm you and trying to do good in the world.. Very simply, to treat others as you'd have them treat yourself and therefore, if your friend did the right thing by people, then he did what he should have and I couldn't judge him. I'm sorry but your understanding of Taqiyya is flawed. If someone came to you and said, 'If you don't stop being an Objectivist I'll kill you.. Renounce it now or die' would you renounce it? If so, then no one could blame you, you had no other option to save your life because you were going to be killed for your beliefs.. That is taqiyya.. You can not use the excuse of taqiyya to mislead people at will, it's very dishonest to do so and we consider that lying.. A proper explanation can be found from the following links from the Islamic Encyclopedia at Al-Islam.org al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation (Part I) al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation (Part 2) al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation (Part 3) Hmmm, Blackhorse, there are no Islamic nations, only nations in the Middle East and elsewhere that have a majority Muslim population.. There is currently no state that can be defined as an Islamic State in the world despite the claims of Iran and Saudi Arabia, they simply don't fit the criteria of what an Islamic State should be and the truth is, if you want to find the closest thing to what an Islamic State should be, then all you need to do is take a look at two documents from the 18th Century, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. The ideals held within in limiting government and guaranteeing rights are found within Islam.. In fact it might surprise you but John Locke himself was influenced by many Islamic Teachings.. The fact is that over the last 1000+ years, the greatness of Islamic Philosophy has been lost amongst Muslims and adopted by the West.. My experience in the Middle East showed me that due to the tyrannical dictators and monarchs that have ruled the Muslim lands and their way of controlling the people, that the very concepts of critical thinking and analysis have largely been lost amongst Muslims, especially within the Muslim world.. When you lose the logic, the critical thinking and analysis, you become people who learn simply by wrote and don't understand the notions of context.. That is what gave birth to the types of mentalities that have arisen in the Muslim world.. The idea that we need to rid the world of Islam to stop the violence and barbarism of the Muslim world is simply wrong.. The fact is that the Arabs were far worse as pagans than they are as Muslims.. Instead, if the US were actually adhering to the ideas of the Founding Fathers it could lead by example and invite the Muslim world to that way of thinking.. And the Muslim world would come in droves.. More than one Islamic scholar has stated that they lived all their lives in the Middle East and didn't find Islam until they went to the USA.. Amen to that..

Hmmm lots of interesting comments here. Is the West at war with Islam? No, to assert so is to say that the majority of Muslims are cowards and not living up to their religious obligation to fight against the West.. Nothing could be further from the truth, we're not afraid and I could assure you that if it were indeed the case that the West and Islam were at war that you'd most certainly know it for sure and wouldn't need to ask the question.. Every Western nation would be on fire.. I'm not just talking about a car bombing here or there, or even planes flying into buildings so infrequently as they have been.. I can tell you very clearly that if those fear mongers were right and we really were at war that you'd have open and intense war and in fact, by now it would be over and done with with absolute destruction on all sides and yet we'd still reign victorious.. However, this is not the case, there is no war.. The majority of Muslims love the West despite the imperialism the West has shown in the lands that Muslims tend to reside.. I lived in the Middle East, the only thing that the majority of Muslims feel towards the West in general is envy, in living in free and open societies where people can have free speech and live their lives with comparatively little interference by the government etc than they face now within their own nations. There are two groups of people that promote the idea that the West is at war with Islam.. The first are the Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, Taliban like 'Islamic' extremists who use it as a rallying cry to recruit and indoctrinate ignorant people to their causes and the second group seems to be right wing extremists within the West that hate everything about Islam and want to wipe it off of the face of the planet.. Both groups are incredibly small and so I say that we should try to convince them that there is no war between and that everyone can all just get along.. Of course should that fail.. I say we get a small piece of land in the world big enough to fit both groups and watch them battle it out to the death like on that Condemned movie.. At least then we can be entertained and also we don't have to deal with their extremist sensationalized rhetoric and hate speech every day and we can just live our lives peacefully..

Fixed :-P Thanks!

The Founding Fathers Were Right About Foreign Affairs by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) April 16, 2002 Last week I appeared on a national television news show to discuss recent events in the Middle East. During the show I merely suggested that there are two sides to the dispute, and that the focus of American foreign policy should be the best interests of America – not Palestine or Israel. I argued that American interests are best served by not taking either side in this ancient and deadly conflict, as Washington and Jefferson counseled when they warned against entangling alliances. I argued against our crazy policy of giving hundred of billions of dollars in unconstitutional foreign aid and military weapons to both sides, which only intensifies the conflict and never buys peace. My point was simple: we should follow the Constitution and stay out of foreign wars. I was immediately attacked for offering such heresy. We've reached the point where virtually everyone in Congress, the administration, and the media blindly accepts that America must become involved (financially and militarily) in every conflict around the globe. To even suggest otherwise in today's political climate is to be accused of "aiding terrorists." It's particularly ironic that so many conservatives in America, who normally adopt an "America first" position, cannot see the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into an intractable and endless Middle East war. The empty justification is always that America is the global superpower, and thus has no choice but to police the world. The Founding Fathers saw it otherwise. Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." How many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Washington similarly urged that the US must "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments." Since so many on Capitol Hill apparently now believe Washington was wrong, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it next time his name is being celebrated. In fact, when I mentioned Washington the other guest on the show quickly repeated the tired cliche that "We don't live in George Washington's times." Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from that era should we discard? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify foolishpolicies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy. It's easy to dismiss the noninterventionist view as the quaint aspiration of men who lived in a less complicated world, but it's not so easy to demonstrate how our current policies serve any national interest at all. Perhaps an honest examination of the history of American interventionism in the 20th century, from Korea to Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, would reveal that the Founding Fathers foresaw more than we think. Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives. Source: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul30.html

The Daily Show Goes To Iran

Michael How silly.. Nevertheless, this is just another reason I don't Twitter.. There's not enough room to go into depth on your thoughts so they can easily be misconstrued. Not cool.

Hi Brant! His life effected geopolitics because he is a religious leader for most Lebanese and Syrian Ithna Ashariyya as well as a portion of the Iraqis, his fatwas had created changes to the way people behaved including regarding politics etc.. His death will bring changes because now his Marja is without a leader, meaning that his followers will now need a new leader.. This new leader will have the same influence as him.. I don't think there is anyone who could fill the void that he left.. It's quite sad..

Do you think that Islam allows for attacks like that of 9/11 despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars have condemned the attacks and given Fatwas with evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah that forbid such actions? If you do believe such a thing, then what more proof do you need that Islam forbids such things or is it something that can never be proven to you? If you do not believe that Islam condones such attacks, then what do you have against these particular Muslims who want to build this mosque?

As we say, We come from God and we return to Him.. Contrary to what many say, he was not the spiritual head of Hezbollah, the spiritual head of Hezbollah is Ayatollah Khamanei in Iran.. However Ayatollah Fadlallah did stand staunchly for justice and equality and supported resisting the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, devoting much of his life to promoting that justice and aside from his scholarly duties and the books he had written, he opened and funded many community projects to help the poor and orphans too. The death of Ayatollah Fadlallah will bring many changes to the world, as the head of a Marja, he was the highest religious authority for many tens of millions of Muslims around the world both in Lebanon and abroad.. His death will effect the geopolitics of the region..

Misquote..

I'm not so surprised to see people like this are in the Objectivist camp, it kind of explains where Perigo gets his ideas from.. So are there different factions amongst Objectionists? Say the Objectionists and the Objectionables?

It pains me to say this, but that is an excellent piece by Diana Hsieh. Btw, what is the reference to "Comrade Sonia?" Ghs I also enjoyed it, I think she's quite an excellent writer.. However, I don't believe that the war can be won through bombing and military actions..

Do people actually listen to this Peikoff? He seems quite insane.. Also, the Imam refused to call Hamas a terrorist organization, so what? Peikoff himself stated that terrorism is a tactic and not really a label for groups. That is quite correct and I believe the Imam was stating the same thing. In fact, I've met this Imam, he's a great guy and is wholly devoted to peace and building positive relationships between Muslims and other religious groups with events such as the Cordoba Initiative etc..

If the US Military were to fight the structure that creates these terrorists they'd have to fight their own president, his intelligence apparatus, his cronies and his corporate fatcat supporters.. Not just the current president's but every presidents' cronies and entourage since the 60s. THEY created the Taliban and Al Qaeda, heck we know it today, Pakistan's ISI today still funds and supports the Taliban and the US Government supports the ISI.. The US Government has also been in bed with the religious extremist for years.. They were largely created in what I believe to be a joint venture of the Middle Eastern tyrants, particularly those within the Gulf and the Anglo European powers.. Each gives reason for the other to exist..

And if the US Government didn't pay off these warlords they'd have casualties that would reflect that of Vietnam.. Those warlords would be fighting against the US and NATO. That's what happens when you buy your opposition, especially when those opposition are ruthless savages.

Thank you for the video Michael, I appreciate that you posted it. These are the same things that I've been saying for years.. It's about education and beating the Taliban and Al Qaeda with better ideas. That is why the solution can only come from Muslims and not the West.. The Muslim world needs to be educated by impartial Muslims who can't be seen to be agents of the West, rather expressing the ideas that actually come from the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.. Now do you understand why I push so hard to get the ideas of Libertarianism compared with Islam's? PS. Also, I don't think that they clapped in any subdued way at the end, if anything, it seemed relatively comparable to the first set of clapping.

Also, if the Israelis are so innocent of their actions and were conducting something lawful, perhaps you could then tell me why they have confiscated and refuse to return most of the footage taken from the Flotilla by the journalists on board? There are hours and hours of footage which Israel refuses to release.. They're hiding their guilt.

Adonis, This is something that gets to me on a level far deeper than politics. I wonder if the Hamas leaders are enjoying their "emotional response" of righteousness as they dig into a hot meal, knowing that they just denied their people's hungry children some food to eat. That kind of soul is my problem. And that's what I refuse to dismiss with them. (I'll get to the other stuff later.) Michael You're assuming that Hamas' leadership don't suffer as much as their people and that it is only their people suffering. Nothing could be further from the truth, I saw how Khaled Meshaal lives in Syria, he lives a very basic life. As does the other Hamas leadership.. They're not like Fatah or the PLO. They are not corrupt and do not live at the expense of their people. And because you saw some pictures which you were told were recent pictures from the Gaza Strip depicting 'every day life for Gazans' you assume that it's 100% accurate? Many aid agencies have stated that most Gazans are suffering from malnutrition and live in terrible conditions.

Your emotional response to it would put your country into further havoc. The reason is because whilst in the short term you may gain some food or concrete it would cost you far more in the future because ultimately, Israel would then use their media machine as a way to say that your acceptance of the goods was a reason to legitimize their piracy and aggressions and then in the future, as they have done numerous times in the past would once again block those supplies from coming in when the media spotlight wasn't on them. Your actions of accepting it would cause more harm than good.. I'm not sure about the paperwork on this occasion, I've definitely combed over the Israeli media and never seen that.. Nevertheless, Israel has consistently refused to allow these goods including concrete to rebuild their homes into Gaza, whether through Aid convoy or other shipments. On many other occasions the Israelis refused to allow goods properly declared like concrete into Gaza. In this instance they were bringing in goods that Israel wasn't letting in on other occasions where people had filled out shipment and customs forms for in the first place like concrete so what makes you think that filling out the paper work would have let it go through this time? If Israel had any intention of letting the goods through upon inspection they wouldn't have attacked the ship in international waters threatening to fire upon it if it didn't stop heading towards Gaza and instead would have asked to inspect the goods first.

Vlad? Excuse me?