Libertarian Muslim

Wow, two interesting options. You can either be slaves to the Jews, or they'll kill you, plunder your lands and take your women and children as slaves..

The definitive book of orthodox Judaism is the Babylonian Talmud compiled by Rsbbis and Sages.

The verses you quote were for Hebrews of the Biblical Era who were as badass as Jihadi Muslims are today.

Judaism has detoxified itself. Primarily it is because Jews have had the shit beat out of them for 1500 years and have been forced to live in lands that were not theirs. It is painful but it is a useful character building exercise.

I look forward (without to much hope) to the day when Islam detoxifies itself.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No one cares about you to be honest. You're just some hate filled nutjob with serious mental issues in the US who isn't a threat to anyone.

The truth is that Muslims have had control over lands filled with Jews for more than 1000 years and there's been no great big genocide of Jews. In fact when Europeans have been the ones massacring Jews with their inquisitions and the sort it has been Muslims that have protected the Jews and given them safe haven. The fact that we haven't done what the Europeans have is enough proof that Muslims aren't a threat to the Jews at all.

If it were truly our goal to rid the world of the Jews I can assure you that it would have already been done long ago.

LM,

Millions? No, several thousand, at the time. Some villages, some farmland, and some Jewish-bought-

and-owned farmland. Your argument is the fallacy of consequentialism - of what 'might have been'

if the scattered population of Palestinians had stayed in place.

Israel/territory is the constant refrain: now the demand is for Israel to return to the '48 borders. Well, tell that to the Arab League who contested those, at the time.

My simple formula derives from these primary facts - the '48 borders were not respected; the '67 borders were not respected; and so on, until now, Hamas still threatens the overthrow of Israel. Violence and threat, which always accompanies no respect for property.

Therefore, given this, can anybody give one - only one- good reason that Israel must respect borders itself?

(Though it repeatedly has done up til now.)

And do so without introducing a double standard?

The whole argument is faulted because who were the international community to impose the creation of a nation state dividing land up which already contained people who had lived in peace for a great deal of time in the first place.

The fact is that Europe hates Jews and has a history of persecuting them and despite the fact that the Jews did their utmost to become European and assimilate the Europeans in their blood lust and hatred still could not resist in murdering Jews so instead of continuing that they thought that they could get rid of the Jews by shipping them off to another land and in all their wisdom in controlling the world they decided to deprive the Palestinians of lands.

- The 1948 borders were illegitimate because they were not agreed on by both parties. Instead, they were agreed upon by Europeans, both European Jews and Europeans who wanted the Jews out and the Arabs that had been promised that land by the Colonial powers (hence the lands being under mandate) were betrayed and the European Jews then began taking the land for themselves after the Arabs disagreed, so and need not be respected.

- The Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 was perpetrated by the Israelis and the British where Israel invaded Egypt to control the Suez Canal.

- The 1967 borders were also illegitimate but that war wasn't actually started by the Arabs, it was the Israelis that attacked first.

For whatever reasons and justification - Israel exists, and is not going anywhere - and your evasions of that reality do nothing but stunt your intellectual growth - as they are stunting the freedom, growth and prosperity of Gaza and the West Bank, by Hamas and the Palestinian inhabitants, too.

Is your concern for their plight (as you've voiced in the past) greater than your hatred for Israel?

Then there is only one option for you and them, to push for peace. Otherwise, everything is

only bluff and bluster and delicate pride.

"Justice"? In objectivist terms, justice is the fruit earned by a person as a result of his

observance and respect for reality - particularly, life. It transcends all Law, secular,

and of course, deist.

Yes, Israel exists now but still has no recognition by the Arabs in general except the Egyptians and Jordanians. So those who consider it an illegitimate military occupation of the lands are well within their rights to resist the occupation of those lands.

The parties who are against the occupation of their lands have offered peace talks, in fact they've made a generous offer of peace with all of the Arab States including the Palestinians yet Israel still drags its feet.

The Arab Peace Initiative, 2002

Official translation of the full text of a Saudi-inspired peace plan adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, 2002.

The Arab Peace Initiative

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session,

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organisations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.

For purposes of comparison, the following is an earlier draft discussed by Arab foreign ministers on 25 March, 2002, in advance of the summit:

The Council of the Arab League, which convenes at the level of a summit on March 27-28, 2002 in Beirut, affirms the Arab position that achieving just and comprehensive peace is a strategic choice and goal for the Arab states.

After the Council heard the statement of Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in which he called for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel, and that Israel declares its readiness to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories in compliance with United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 and Security Council resolution 1397, enhanced by the Madrid conference and the land-for-peace principle, and the acceptance of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital, the Council calls on the Israeli government to review its policy and to resort to peace while declaring that just peace is its strategic option.

The Council also calls on Israel to assert the following:

• 
  Complete withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including full withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied parts of south Lebanon to the June 4, 1967 lines.
  
• 
  To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194.
  
• 
  To accept an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian lands occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and with Jerusalem (al-Quds al-Sharif) as its capital in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1397.
  

In return, the Arab states assert the following:

• 
  To consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over and to enter into a peace treaty with Israel to consolidate this.
  
• 
  To achieve comprehensive peace for all the states of the region.
  
• 
  To establish normal relations within the context of comprehensive peace with Israel.
  

The Council calls on the Israeli government and the Israelis as a whole to accept this initiative to protect the prospects of peace and to spare bloodshed so as to enable the Arab states and Israel to coexist side by side and to provide for the coming generations a secure, stable and prosperous future.

It calls on the international community with all its organisations and states to support the initiative.

The Council calls on its presidency, its secretary general and its follow-up committee to follow up on the special contacts related to this initiative and to support it on all levels, including the United Nations, the United States, Russia, the European Union and the Security Council.

Read it for yourself here.

http://www.faithfree...g/challenge.htm

Yes, Islam is in grave danger. Never, since its inception, Islam has faced a threat as serious as this. Today, millions of ex-Muslims are questioning the claimed truth of Islam, can make their criticisms heard worldwide, and unlike before, not fear for their lives. As long as these questions are not answered, this trend is only bound to continue, until the trickle becomes a torrent and the fall of Islam becomes obvious. In the past, the critics of Islam briefly shined like lamps in darkness, only to be put out by winds of persecution. What is happening today can be likened to the break of the dawn. Darkness has no chance in front of this much light. Muslims are waking up and leaving Islam like never before. A spiritual and intellectual revolution is underway. This is the century of enlightenment of the benighted Muslims. The giant is finally awakening. The days of Islam are numbered. This demon of hate and ignorance will be slain by the hands of its own primary victims. The unity of mankind and the world peace are around the corner.

LOL. Islam is growing stronger and stronger every day, more and more people in the West are accepting Islam, not because they are forced to do so by the sword as many claim that Islam spread this way, rather, they do it after studying it for themselves.

Islam isn't in any danger and the ridiculousness of Sina's comments are apparent.

For example.

On the website he calls Muhammad a mass murderer. He gives the reason for this as the fact that the men of the Banu Qurayza were put to the sword after the Battle of the Trench.

But he fails to mention several important facts.

Firstly, they made a treaty with the Muslims as inhabitants of Medina, they took part in the constitution and as citizens of the nation they were obliged to help defend Yathrib.

However, during the battle they switched sides as a tribe and started attacking Yathrib from within.

These actions were treasonous as they fought against the state and assisted those at war with the state.

When they were besieged by the State they gave up. They then asked to be judged not according to Islamic law, but according to their own laws which was Jewish law.

They asked a former Jewish scholar who had converted to Islam to pass judgement on them rather than allowing Muhammad to do it and that judge did exactly that.

He went according to Jewish law which stated:

For example in Deuteronomy Chapter 20 (Parshah Shoftim)

11. And it will be, if it responds to you with peace, and it opens up to you, then it will be, [that] all the people found therein shall become tributary to you, and they shall serve you.

12. But if it does not make peace with you, and it wages war against you, you shall besiege it,

13. and the Lord, your God, will deliver it into your hands, and you shall strike all its males with the edge of the sword.

14. However, the women, the children, and the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoils you shall take for yourself, and you shall eat the spoils of your enemies, which the Lord, your God, has given you.

And so that was what happened. Their actions were treason and thus a crime against the state and a crime against any state today. Their punishment could not be considered murder because the matter was adjudicated on by a judge of their own choosing who held them accountable to their own laws.

For it to be murder, their executions would have to have been unlawful and this is not the case.

So what I'm getting is that the majority of Jews in Israel actually have no real religious connection to those lands in the first place.

Cultural more than religious. Most American Jews have no intention of ever going to Israel (for which I can hardly blame them). For them it is more a cultural artifact or a place to take a two week vacation and "work" on a Kibbutz (for which privilege the will pay several thousand dollars). Or they will get a mini-thrill from visiting the Jerusalem and touching the West Wall. For American Jews (by and large) America is home. We are not exactly living in "exile".

Ba'al Chatzaf

Fantastic! Let's deprive millions of people with an unbroken link to the Holy Land of their homes and farmlands built by their fathers, their father's fathers and so on going back more than a thousand years as well as depriving them of having a nation state because some Jews who say that God promised them the land and therefore it is there's yet have no real religious practice can have a nice vacation place by the sea.

Sounds like justice to me.

Jewish extremists are in the minority in Israel which has a small population. The entire population of Israel amounts to one quarter of all the Jews there are. And that population is a miniscule portion of the world's population.

So what you're stating is that Jewish extremists only make up a very small portion of Jews? Therefore they're not representative of Jews?

Newsflash, Muslims have been saying that about extremists in Islam for years yet you still don't take that as an excuse, why should we accept your excuse?

The attitude of American Jews (who are the ones contributing the most directly and indirectly to Israel and its people) is decidedly NOT extreme. Jews tend to be liberals in the U.S. not especially pro-war.

Rabbi Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein were US Jews actually, so are the Jewish Task Force.

In modern times. the percentage of Jews who are observant is probably less than 15% if the Jewish population of New York City is any indication. And most of these folks are actually not fervent Zionists either. The attitude among Orthodox Jews concerning the founding of the State of Israel was rather negative. They believe it would be up to G-D when and if He decided to regather His people to the Land of Promise. They definitely did not approve of the original crew of Zionists who were mostly Socialist and Atheistic and certainly non observant. The fire-brands in Israel are a minority of a minority.

So what I'm getting is that the majority of Jews in Israel actually have no real religious connection to those lands in the first place.

LM,

I care.

I believe in free speech.

Do you?

Or will you continue apologizing for blindsiding intimidation when it comes from your end?

btw - I totally disagree with the opinion in the opening post on this thread.

Michael

I certainly do believe in free speech Michael but unfortunately, what Craig Winn is doing is not just free speech. It's inciting violence and hatred against Muslims and therefore begins to infringe on the rights of Muslims with his free speech and as I believe in the principle written by Thomas Jefferson where he stated "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

Craig Winn is aware of what he is doing. He knows what he is publicly stating about Islam and Muslims are lies and the lies he perpetrates against the Muslim community has inspired religious fanatics all around to attack Muslims on the street and firebomb mosques and community centres.

He is no different to me than Rabbi Meir Kahane and actually has a major alliance with the Jewish Task Force, a Kahanist Group with links to Baruch Goldstein, an American Jew who moved to Israel and massacred 29 Palestinian worshippers in a mass shooting while they were praying, injuring more than 100 more.

Now when I say that I don't care if he receives death threats you fail to take it into context with what is said below it. I said if he was actually killed I would condemn it because it is unlawful too.

In terms of what I said about understanding where someone would be coming from if they did threaten or harm Craig Winn, I sincerely do because if your wife is attacked and beaten on the street by someone inspired by his lies, it's only natural that you'd see that person as a threat to your and your family's lives and wellbeing.

Now why should I care about threats to Craig Winn's life when as a result of his irresponsible lies, I now have to be more concerned about my safety and that of my community? Surely I have a right to care more about protecting my community.

William,

A finely crafted advocacy of moral individualism, I think.

Firm, but gentle.

I don't only tip my hat, I salute you!

May each party see that his hot-headedness is only a different side

of the same shared coin. We should all know, at least once, the experience of

looking into the abyss and seeing ourselves looking back at us.

To clarify, and I know that William was very aware of this, my comments about Judaism being a violent religion that promoted slavery and the killing of innocent people was not my opinion at all.

Rather, it was an exercise to show Baal that the type of arguments that he uses to make Muslims and Islam look violent are in fact just as easily applied to Judaism and Jews because it is quite easy to pick and choose verses from a book out of context and without considering abrogation and also by pointing out the extremist views of a very vocal minority and saying that if some believe this, then all must etc.

I just hope that Baal can look at this and appreciate that it's just not as simple as he thinks and it's really inappropriate to judge the beliefs of 1.6 billion people in the world based on arguments that contain faulted logic.

Craig Winn did that.

No, he didn't. He went in there trying to prove that Islam was a religion of violence and terrorism and so he took everything he could find that confirmed his preconceived notions without actually studying into the issue.

How do you know? Did you read or listen to the book? He put things in chronological order and context.

I've heard him debate and argue and what he does is nothing new, anyone could do it.

Craig Winn did the research.

That isn't proper research.

Research must be done with an open mind and heart and completely without bias, he was incapable of doing this and it is reflected in his work.

Actually the person you need to argue with is Muhammad.

Bottom line is: you don't want to read or listen to the book. Craig Winn says he got many death threats from Muslims.

Not quite sure why I'd need to argue with Muhammad, I agree with everything he did during his life.

Problem is that you don't know what he did in his life because all you're relying on is stupid websites which take things out of context instead of studying things for yourself.

And who cares if he got death threats? What did he expect when he started intentionally perpetrating lies to incite hate and violence against the honor of 1.6 billion people in the world, some of whom still hold chivalry to be very important to some extent? Flowers? Get real.

If a White Supremacist were to start pushing the notion that Blood Libel was real and that Jews secretly wanted to kill Christian children, to sacrifice them and said these things with the intention to incite violence against Jews what do you think the response from the Jewish community would be? Especially groups like the JDL? It would be violence, plain and simple and without prejudice and certainly without reservation. So how come Muslims should have to put up with anymore than any other group?

I've gotten death threats too and if you go to SOLO Passion's website and insult Ayn Rand, watch and see what their response will be to you. I went on there and corrected their views about Islam and they started threatening me.

The fact is that some people get quite emotional about having their honor insulted, does that excuse violence? In most cases I would say no, but in some cases it certainly does.

For example, if I were married and I were walking with my wife in Saudi Arabia, and some religious policeman came to me, arrogantly demanding to see my wedding papers to prove that I had the right to walk next to my wife, my response would be to give him a backhander so profound that it would cause his body to defy the laws of physics and Newton himself would turn over in his grave in amazement. And why is that? Two reasons.

The first being that I am a free man and my wife is a free woman, given by God natural rights and free will and no man has the right to interfere with that. Secondly, because by demanding to see such papers he would be therefore be making a subtle accusation that my wife is unchaste and I would not stand for that, not now, not ever.

Now could I care less if someone decided to rid this earth of people like Craig Winn? I'm sorry, but no, not really. I certainly wouldn't support such actions and would condemn them because they are unlawful but I could understand the reasoning behind it, particularly when I know that as a fact that Mosques and Islamic Schools get burnt down and firebombed and Muslim women get attacked on the street by people who believe his garbage in the first place. Or don't we have the same right to safety and security that Craig Winn does?

You want me to back up accusations against Muhammad. But if I do, it's BS from the internet.

Did you explore the website? Did you read the book or listen to the audio of the book? It is in html form, pdf form, and audio form. Zero price.

Islam is the religion invented by Muhammad. It consists of what Muhammad said. (We can't say 'wrote' because he was illiterate.) Based on his own statements, Islam is evil and he was a monster.

The sincere thing to do is to read or listen to the book. Muhammad's own words. Read or listen to the book as critically as you wish.

No, I want you to back up your accusations after actually having gone and read the Qur'an, Seerah and hadiths for yourself, numerous translations of them and Qur'anic explanations by scholars of Islam who have not only studied the Qur'an in its original language, but looked at each verse within the context in which it was revealed. If you can't do that then there is no real use in discussing anything with you because it just means that you're another parrot who simply repeats what he hears or reads.

Craig Winn, the author of Prophet of Doom is perhaps one of the most ridiculous people I've heard of.

The reason is simple. He picks verses from different translations which suit the narrative that he wants to push, he leaves out the context in which it was revealed and the verses that relate to it, including those which surround them.

The reason why you believe what he says is because you lack the ability to use your own free thought to research things for yourself with an open heart and without your mind already made up about the issue.

The problem with people like yourself and Craig Winn is that you suffer from confirmation bias. You see a verse that you think is supporting your view previously held so you take it as confirmation of what you believe yet when there are verses or hadiths which contradict your point of view you ignore it.

This is why there's no use arguing with people like you or Craig Winn.

The writer of this thread makes some huge accusations against Muhammad yet doesn't back them up with fact. What I would like to see is him start a thread for each accusation and allow me to present a response to it, otherwise it's just rhetoric and BS.

I posted this link several times.

http://prophetofdoom.net/

LOL. Sorry, I thought I was speaking to someone of independent thought who researched things for themselves rather than just believing BS from the internet.

Never mind then.

jts: Human nature is the same for all people. The natural world presents the same challenges to all creatures and is equally ruthless to whomever ignores its laws. Could the Muslim culture have survived and thrived for all these centuries if the majority of its members had demonstrated the traits you've named? If so, how?

I am admittedly ignorant of Muslim culture but I believe the face that Muslims show to non-Muslims is far different than what they show to each other. I think a non-Muslim cannot know what it's like to be a Muslim. I can't forget Wafa Sultan however. It appears from her testimony that the experience of a Muslim woman is different than that of a man. I can understand a warrior culture but I cannot reconcile mistreatment of women to any part of my moral sense nor understand it.

As usual, I display my naivete to all.

Wafa Sultan, an Alawite who like most Alawites of Syria, are very unaware of their own religious beliefs, that compounded with the fact that Syria has always been secular in government with the Baath Party in power which would have been her experience.

The writer of this thread makes some huge accusations against Muhammad yet doesn't back them up with fact. What I would like to see is him start a thread for each accusation and allow me to present a response to it, otherwise it's just rhetoric and BS.

Rabbi Yitzick is so far from main line Judaism that he is a statistical blip. Hardly a single American Jew would agree with him and overwhelmingly most would curse him for his extremism. Many Jews would say he is as bad as a Muslim.

At this time the only causes permitted to shed blood according to Talmudic Judaism (which is the current form) is (1) self defense (2) to save a life or (3) combat in a just or right war.

Jewish "Jihadis" are as rare as tits on a bull.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The notion that it supports combat in a just or right war supports exactly what the Torah version stated specifically because the Jews believed that their actions were sanctioned by God. So your diversionary tactics aren't working.

Also, sorry but I don't hear enough Jews actually condemning these extremist Jews and in fact, the Israeli government isn't even stopping it which must mean that these extremists are tolerated as it's in Jewish scripture, perhaps you're just hiding the fact that it's a Jewish belief to protect yourself. We know that Jews in the past have hidden their religious beliefs to avoid persecution.

Wow, two interesting options. You can either be slaves to the Jews, or they'll kill you, plunder your lands and take your women and children as slaves..

The definitive book of orthodox Judaism is the Babylonian Talmud compiled by Rsbbis and Sages.

The verses you quote were for Hebrews of the Biblical Era who were as badass as Jihadi Muslims are today.

Judaism has detoxified itself. Primarily it is because Jews have had the shit beat out of them for 1500 years and have been forced to live in lands that were not theirs. It is painful but it is a useful character building exercise.

I look forward (without to much hope) to the day when Islam detoxifies itself.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Hmmm, interesting.

Though quite unbelievable actually. Especially considering the behavior of many extremist Jews in Israel and abroad who promote Kahanism and other disgusting ideologies claiming that such beliefs are "True Torah" beliefs.

"All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts." This was the religious opinion issued one week ago by Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of the Tsomet Institute

Or how about:

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira has been arrested for allegedly firebombing a mosque. Rabbi Shapira published a book entitled The King’s Torah in which he claimed that it was permissible under Jewish law for a Jew to kill a non-Jewish civilian (including a child). He also advocated the expulsion or genocide of all male Palestinians above the age of thirteen.

And:

The rabbi of Safed, a government employee, has decreed that it is strictly forbidden to let apartments to Arabs – including the Arab students at the local medical school. Twenty other town rabbis – whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers, mostly secular, including Arab citizens – have publicly supported this edict.

So I guess you were wrong, looks like Judaism hasn't in fact detoxified and in that case, if it hasn't after 4000 years, what hope is there of it ever happening?

I'm not disheartened, and I honestly believe that their hate is justified, given their ignorance (or what facts they choose to focus on and facts they ignore).

Very true, I must admit however that I find people that are willfully ignorant about issues yet still hold an opinion on it to be very annoying.

William Scherk has already told me about you and thinks we'll have a lot to discuss. I look forward to some discussions around the forum.

Ah yes, William Scherk. He's a very enthusiastic guy, great heart.

Not at all, and that concept is foreign to Islam also.

Really now? What about the struggle between the dar al Harb and the dar al sala'am?

ba'al Chatzaf

These are not the only statuses of diplomatic relationships in Islam. You can have fruitful trade and diplomatic relationships with any nation so long as it's built on mutual respect and good faith.

For example there is also Dar Al Amn or the Abode of Safety, where Muslims live in non Islamic countries yet their rights are respected and can practice their religion.

The Ottoman Empire had Dar al-Sulh, or the Abode of Treaty, where a peace treaty allowed Muslim and non Muslim states to engage in relations without any fear of war so long as it was built on mutual respect.

The view which you hold is very simplistic view that extremists tend to hold also. However, these terms are not found in the Qur'an, nor in Hadith and only came about later. As opposed to Jewish teachings of the Old Testament that promoted the killing of all the men and enslavement of all women and children of lands that didn't submit.

For example in Deuteronomy Chapter 20 (Parshah Shoftim)

10. When you approach a city to wage war against it, you shall propose peace to it.

11. And it will be, if it responds to you with peace, and it opens up to you, then it will be, [that] all the people found therein shall become tributary to you, and they shall serve you.

12. But if it does not make peace with you, and it wages war against you, you shall besiege it,

13. and the Lord, your God, will deliver it into your hands, and you shall strike all its males with the edge of the sword.

14. However, the women, the children, and the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoils you shall take for yourself, and you shall eat the spoils of your enemies, which the Lord, your God, has given you.

15. Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.

http://www.chabad.or...le_cdo/aid/9984

Wow, two interesting options. You can either be slaves to the Jews, or they'll kill you, plunder your lands and take your women and children as slaves..

Assalaamu Alaikumm WR WB Haider,

Ahlan wa Sahlan!

Nice to see another Muslim on here, I hope you enjoy your stay and don't get disheartened by people like Infidel and Baal and a few others.

They're motivated and guided by hate compounded by profound ignorance.

Seal of their hearts etc.

Look forward to hearing from you more. We have a Mid East section here, it's where I mostly post when I have time. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showforum=57

Ws!

LM,

That's not what I'm talking about when I say social ideology.

I'm talking about a system for taking over the world to produce some kind of utopia--whether people want it or not.

And if they don't, a forced or covert indoctrination system to make them want it.

Michael

Not at all, and that concept is foreign to Islam also.

So long as Islam is a religion and treated as such, I think it is just as good as any other religion. I happen to believe there is a lot of good in it (qua religion), as I do for all the main religions.

The problem comes when Islam is promoted by fanatics as a social ideology to take over the world, say like communism does. Then I believe it loses its religious characteristic for a lot of people and they see it as a threat.

There is nothing better than separation of church and state for legal issues.

Michael

Michael, any ideology can be used by fanatics as an excuse to maintain power and control over people for their own benefit.

LM,

Just so I understand correctly, are you saying that it is OK to consider Islam as a social ideology?

Michael

Social ideology in the sense that one's religious beliefs effect the way that one conducts themselves in their interactions with other people, the way they vote, the way they spend money, the schools they send their children to, the places they will socialize in?

If so, then all religions generally have that function.

Shariah is beyond liberty. Allah decides the actions of Muslims, not muslims themselves.

That's silly. Allah knows everything that will happen and allows it to because He gave mankind the freedom to choose for ourselves. This is the ultimate proof that freedom is paramount in Islam because if Allah doesn't exercise much control over us, then what right does the state have?

LM,

So long as Islam is a religion and treated as such, I think it is just as good as any other religion. I happen to believe there is a lot of good in it (qua religion), as I do for all the main religions.

The problem comes when Islam is promoted by fanatics as a social ideology to take over the world, say like communism does. Then I believe it loses its religious characteristic for a lot of people and they see it as a threat.

There is nothing better than separation of church and state for legal issues.

Michael

Michael, any ideology can be used by fanatics as an excuse to maintain power and control over people for their own benefit.

For a true Muslim there is no such distinction. The only true guide is the Holy Q'ran and the Hadiths.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Also ridiculous, Christianity maybe, but one only has to look at the Muslim Empires in Cordoba and Baghdad to see that education in science and everything else was considered an obligation to Muslims. Where else did the Europeans steal the knowledge to have their own reneissance.

Islam promotes the education of all, from the beggar to the king, men and women, regardless of race or religion.

LM,

But as libertarian, you surely believe in a clear distinction between Mosque and State?

I do, Islam does also.

Islam is a force that is independent of American policy, and independent of dictators. There's a difference between deposing a dictator to usher in freedom and deposing a dictator to usher in Islam. Which one is going to be the case isn't determined by the dictator.

I don't see ushering in freedom as being mutually exlusive from ushering in Islam. But that's just my point of view as I understand Islam differently to many people. I think what we'd all like to avoid is a Wahhabist system like Saudi Arabia's or worse being implemented but I don't think it will.

Any experimental support of this? The gold standard is experimental corroboration.

By the way, the burning of hypergolic mixtures is just as quantum mechanical.

Chemical reactions which are changes in bonds can be understood only in terms of quantum theory.

Prima facia the claim violates several well established laws of thermodynamics. The first thing one learns is there is no work done for free. The second thing one learns is that energy transfers that produce motion are in the direction of greater entropy. Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Beware of perpetual motion machines. They are ueber bogus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy0UBpagsu8

We've seen democracy in action in the Islamic world already, and in each case it's brought the voting public closer to Islamic theocracy. I guess that does, by Islamic standards, bring them closer to a corruption free world. Burying someone to their neck and stoning them for apostasy isn't corrupt. It's Islamic.

No, a democracy was Iran in the early 1950's when they democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh. It was the CIA and MI6 who launched Operation Ajax and overthrew him despite the fact that he was friendly to the West and Western educated.

What is happening in Iran today and the style of government there eis due to the interference of the West, it gets the hardliners support because they don't want foreign powers ruling their country. As soon as the West leaves Iran alone, positive change will occur.

If the Soviet Union had overthrew the US government in the 70's and installed a dictator, and then the people rose up against this dictator and pushed him and his cronies out, what type of government do you think the US would elect? It would most definitely be hardline.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/325785

Egyptian girl, Aisha Mustafa, invents new space propulsion system

Posted May 31, 2012 by JohnThomas Didymus

A physics student from Egypt's Sohag University, Aisha Mustafa, 19, has patented a new type of propulsion system based on quantum theory that she says could propel space probes and artificial satellites without using any fuel.

According Gizmodo, Aisha's new system exploits the quirky laws of quantum physics which state that in spite of appearances, space really is not vacuum but that it is a seething cauldron of fundamental particle interactions involving creation and destruction of "virtual particles." Mustafa believes it is possible to use vacuum energy fields to create propulsion and build spacecraft propulsion systems that need little or no fuel to travel in space. According to Fast Company, Mustafa is betting on exploiting quantum effects involved in dynamic Casimir effect and the Casimiri-Polder force. She uses two silicon metallic plates in a vacuum, "like capacitors placed a few micrometers apart." The plates interact with the virtual photons in the quantum field and generate a net force that is either an attraction or a repulsion depending on their arrangement. According to OnIslam.net, the invention is similar to a hypothetical concept of jet propulsion termed “Differential Sail," proposed by NASA’s Marc G. Millis. Fast Company reports that Aisha's university was so impressed with her new invention that it assisted her with a patent application. OnIslam.net reports that Mustafa's supervisor, Dr. Ahmed Fikry, who heads the physics department in Sohag University, said “I expect this invention to be highly beneficial in several fields and areas of industries." The President of Sohag University, Dr. Nabil Nour Eldin Abdellah, said the university facilitates "science clubs" for creative students. He said: “Once we knew about her (Mustafa’s) invention, we encouraged her and provided her with the budget needed through the Science Club for innovative students in the university. This is the case with any other creative student." According to OnIslam.net, with the retirement of NASA's space shuttle program, the field of space vehicles propulsion is expanding and and growing in importance with ongoing search for new methods of space travel that are faster, safer, cheaper and easier. A rich variety of new ideas in propulsive systems are being proposed some of which are beyond current technological capabilities to implement. Gizmodo reports that Mustafa intends to further study and develop the design so that it may be tested out. In a popular Egyptian morning program "Sabah El kheir Ya Masr"(Good Morning Egypt), Mustafa expressed her appreciation to her faculty and university staff for providing materials, resources and support. She, however, lamented that there is no funding for a department of space science in her university and in Egyptian universities in general. She said this prevents development and research in the field of space technology. She said: “Departments of astronomy and physics are only available. Although they are related to space sciences but unfortunately they aren’t into the specific field of my invention and they can’t practically test or implement it.”

Exactly.

I believe that there are some Ma'soom people, that is, people who have no intention to commit sins who were mandated by God to have authority over the government but they are far and few between and we believe that the Prophet Muhammad, His son in law Ali ibn abi Talib and his two sons Hassan and Hussein were such people and I would have no problems whatsoever giving full authority or power to someone like that.

But there is no one like that apparent today and so I am not comfortable however, giving such authority to clerics who are fallible and therefore, it becomes necessary to have a separation of the powers of government so as to prevent tyranny from taking place and thus it becomes necessary for the people to hold that power and to protect it.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard should be there to protect the people's rights, not keep a bunch clerics in power.

LM:

Well, as usual, that is not as clear to either, me, or the folks that I know. Certainly some form of democratic plural government would be their desire.

However, as you know, there are severely entrenched power bases that go back at least 1, 200 or more years. Some that go back to pre-Alexander times. We are dealing with a genetic pool that can be traced back to Central Asia, Tajikstan; Uzbekistan; Afghaniztan; parts of Western Pakistan; Northern Iraq; Eastern Turkey and all throughout the Caucasus Mountains.

The answer, as in Egypt, Syria etc. is who knows what will replace the current regime.

Adam

What I support for Iran is a change from Wilayat al Faqih to Wilayat al Ummah.