Libertarian Muslim

Iran has no political influence in Egypt.

LM:

This is patently false. You may want to restate your statement. You could argue that it has very little, or almost no influence, but a categorical zero influence statement does not reflect reality.

Adam

Thus far, I have seen no evidence that Iran has ANY political influence in Egypt. If you'd like to show me where they do I'd be happy to read it and stand corrected but due to the great number of ideological differences between the two nations in addition to the cultural differences I'd say that it doesn't make sense.

Regardless of how much influence Iran has with Egypt, Egypt is becoming closer to Iran by the day. So is Turkey. It took a major step towards Islamisation last week with the resignations of the top military brass.

Turkey took a major step towards Islamisation last week with the resignation of its top military brass? Are you serious? If anything, it took a huge step towards becoming a better democracy because in the past, instead of the military brass resigning, they would launch a coup and start imprisoning, torturing and executing people who spoke out against them.

Iran has no political influence in Egypt.

All revolutions have participants of opposing interests.. I have faith that the Egyptians will find a balance so long as there isn't foreign interference.

I love how you're so optimistic.

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

When you delve into it, historically they haven't been given the "full rights of any citizen", nor are they given full rights today. Even if what you say about the Dhimmi was true, that still leaves the people who not of the people of the book, who clearly are given no rights at all.

The verse you've quoted is not so much referring to one being subdued as in not having their rights or being second class citizens, but from my understanding of the verse, it relates to them being subjected to the state, rather than being divided on religious, tribal or cultural lines like they usually were. That was part of the crux of the Constitution of Medina, Jews and Muslims were all considered citizens of the state with full rights regardless of their race or religion.

And in terms of historically, no doubt it on most if not all occasions there has been a degree of second class citizenry at one time or another due to the changes within governments, especially when hardliners come into power. But having said that, this is due to the state failing as a whole to fulfill its obligation which is the fault of the people. There were not enough protections for the non Muslims, this would obviously have to change.

You do make it sound so reasonable.

Could Dhimmi-ism be the final solution to the Israeli - Palestine problem?

The warm embrace of Arab nations extended to their Semitic cousins and neighbor.

If there were adequate protections and checks and balances in place to ensure that the Jews, Christians and Muslims rights were equally respected and protected, that they would have equal political representation and it was with the goal of brotherhood between us all then yes.

One thing I must know before I'm convinced and sign on the dotted line, LM, since I don't know anything about it, is this:

Would you, could you - if your country Australia changed its attitude towards its Muslim citizens, (a policy shift or whatever, reasons unimportant) and declared that they (you) live exactly as dhimmis henceforth in Australia - would you find this to be acceptable? practical? ethical? You would not object, right?

Australia is a bad example. Firstly, I don't live there nor do I intend to live there in the future.

But if it were, say New Zealand where I currently live then sure, why not? If it was done in the way that I had mentioned as above, and all of my religious and individual rights were respected and we were given representation in the political system then of course.

Your honest answer to this imaginary test would help me appreciate the generously benevolent nature of dhimmi-ism, or not.

(No tax, too?)

In terms of the tax, I wouldn't think it would be necessary for us to pay it because I'd ensure that our military contribution would cover it.

Why hate Israelis, and not Jews?

Why would they hate Jews? They as a religion or ethnic group are not guilty of anything and shouldn't be treated with any disdain simply because of their religion or ethnicity. They

I've discovered talking with Israelis that in the main there is no corresponding hatred for Muslims, generally, Palestinians in particular. A watchful wariness, but not hate.

No, the haters themselves are perceived by Israelis as ignorants who have not had the opportunity and freedom to think for themselves.

Any loathing by Israelis is reserved for those manipulative figures behind Hamas, Hezbollah,etc, and their patron states of Iran and Syria. These are the mongrels who would sacrifice countless lives, twist truth, and deny liberty to Jews - and to their own people, other Muslims - for the purpose of some 'Master Plan.'

I don't think that all Israelis hate Arabs or Muslims. I've come across many militant Israelis, I've even been physically assaulted on a bus by Israelis simply for having a Palestinian kaffiyeh on whilst I was in Melbourne. There is also a huge issue with settlers that you've failed to mention.

You state it would be 'acceptable' for Jews to live as dhimmis?

I don't think we agree on the definition of what a Dhimmi is to even get into this discussion. My understanding of a Dhimmi is that they are protected and that Muslims are obligated to protect them from harm, even if it costs us our lives, just like we have on many occasions. That they have the full rights of any citizen and can live under their own religious laws and the only thing separating them from the Muslims is that they are not obligated to serve aid in the defense of the state if they are prepared to pay the Jizyah tax. If however, they are prepared to contribute to the defense of the state they are not obligated to pay any Jizyah tax. For Muslims however, it is not optional, we are obligated to fight and there is no ifs or buts about it.

I believe that Israel runs under something similar if I'm not mistaken?

Is this your personal solution and Master Plan, too?

Is what my personal solution? I was talking about the Islamists opinion, not my own.

You do know what this is; it is totalitarianism. It removes by force any human choice, or drive to self-sovereignty.

This is utterly opposed to individualism (and may I add, Libertarianism).

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here?

The general hatred of Israel, you make clear.

I would suggest the hatred is more psychological than ideological: she succeeded.

I don't hate Israel. I have little use for such an emotion and never do I apply such strong emotions and feelings so generally to cover an entire people or nation. I may hate actions taken out by the state, but never for the state itself.

Against odds, a state was created out of nothing, a mixture of people - including over a million Muslims who are happy to call it their home - took their fate in their own hands, kicked butt when they were attacked, and would still live in harmony with their neighbours, if they were left to their own devices.

The country flies proudly in the face of totalitarianism, and Islamic fatalism.

See, if Israel was a libertarian state that was neither a Jewish state nor an Islamic state I'd be more than happy to support it, simply because it would cater more for all people. However it is not. There are also many issues raised by Arab Israelis who put forward that they are not treated like equals, that the amount of money invested into their communities by the government is not even a tenth of that which is invested into Jewish communities and that they feel like second class citizens. Hence my support for a libertarian state there which is not based on religion, yet allows those within the state to live by their own religious laws.

Have you anything to convince me otherwise?

I would like to further understand the hatred for 'Zionism'.

The reason I don't like Zionism is because it promotes the idea that simply based on ones race or religion it grants those few greater rights to land where people of a different race or religion had been living for generations uninterrupted and that a nation state should be built around this idea. All of this in a place where the it is incredibly important to people of three different faiths.

Actually it doesn't matter what the spelling of the name is as it's an Arabic name, Baal's transliteration will suffice. Though I think you meant Qutb? Though if you actually believe that his ideas came from his dislike of American morals and individualism then I feel sorry for you.

I see so many indications on vehicles like Palestinian TV and elsewhere--including literature penned by Muslims protesting the Nazi influence among Islamists (like the Tell Children The Truth site I have referenced)--that go contrary to what you say, I have to stick with my own eyes for my guidance. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. (I sourced Muslims who agree with me to dispel the notion of Westerner attacking Islam. If my observations offend you, it is shared by Muslims whose observations must also offend you.)

I've looked through the website Michael, I disagree with the notion that all of those who fought against Israel being created were supportive of Nazism as an ideology, if anything the website proves that the Muslims did NOT support the Grand Mufti, and that the British installed him into power against the wishes of the people who voted to have someone else to be the Grand Mufti. The only way that the Mufti got any type of support was after the British backed ideology that fermented hate against the Jews and thus gave the British a reason to continue occupying Palestine to 'keep the peace' was spread around as he was their appointed leader, just like they helped create Wahhabism to get the Arabs to fight against the Ottoman Empire.

The examples of Muslims supporting the Nazis in war against the British such as those in Palestine, Iraq and Bosnia can easily be seen as not support for the ideology of Nazism, but a reaching out for assistance to fight those that occupied their lands, following the age old adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In the case of the Bosnians I can say that they had no other option, they were being massacred by the thousands by the Serbs, 150,000 Bosnians were massacred which was 9% of the population and a further 250,000 were expelled from their homes, just so the Cetniks could create their Greater Serbia and Communists could get their Communist Utopia.. The Bosnians didn't hate Jews nor did they want to go and fight against Jews, they stayed in their country and fought the Cetniks and Communists, just as the Finnish did the same in joining with the Nazis. Let's not also forget that the Jewish Lehi AKA the Stern Gang also offered to assist the Nazis to fight the British. So are they Nazis too? Surely they are not, and the same could not be said for the Muslims except maybe a few die hard radicals who such as the Grand Mufti.

I do agree that I see the Israel as opposed to Jew distinction in a lot of the stuff I read and view. But that does not annul the bigoted stuff nor the Nazi intellectual influence I have been talking about. It's not exclusively one or the other. They both exist. The Muslim culture is mixed, just like all cultures are.

What Nazi intellectual influence exactly? The radical Islamists never adopted the ideas of the Mufti, they had people like Syed Qutb.

Whilst many may claim that the fact that Mein Kampf is sold everywhere in the Middle East and therefore the Arabs are somehow supportive of the Nazis, they should take a look at the same shelves and they'll also find books by Darwin on the Evolution of the Species, does that make them evolutionists? No, it doesn't. It just means they have no problem with reading about different ideologies and studying, if you do this in the West it is admired as searching for knowledge, if an Arab does it, it makes them a terrorist or Nazi. .

I also don't see a fundamental philosophical difference between genocide against Jews and only accepting Jews who bow down as inferiors before another race or culture. They are both forms of racial or cultural collectivism (i.e., bigotry) and both contain the "master race" (or "master culture") theme. If that philosophical premise is accepted, genocide is a matter of degree, not kind.

There's a huge difference between the two.. Part of the Nazi ideology was to commit genocide against the Jews, the Islamists don't have that idea and simply want to have an Islamic State where the Jews are a part of it. They don't hate the Jews like the Nazis hated them either. So as I said, they're two separate entities and to say that they're the same, is incorrect and dilutes what Nazism actually was.

Is it OK to hate Jews who do not bow to anyone?

I hold no people should have to bow to another. Here in the USA, to paraphrase Rand, we fought a Civil War to resolve that issue.

Jews shouldn't have to bow to anyone.. They should be in charge of their own destiny, but so should the Arabs and Muslims but I don't often see the world crying for the Arabs and Muslims like I see the world do the same for the Jews.. Instead the Arabs and Muslims are just told to shut up and deal with it. Why should it be any different?

As to terrorism against civilians, I was speaking about a specific kind of overt terrorism like setting off hidden bombs in peaceful public places. Surprise attacks on civilians in broad daylight. This is very Nazi-like. Obviously, secret police picking up dissenters in the middle of the night is also a form of terrorism and many dictators--wherever dictators may be the world over--do that (not just Nazis). And other forms of barbarism.

Hmmm the Nazis were a regime, they used a military and launched conventional attacks on their enemies and then used a secret police to terrorize the populace into submission, nevertheless, I don't believe that this fits in the same definition of terrorism that I was talking about.

Sorry for not replying sooner Michael, I've been rather busy preparing for an overseas visitor plus work etc.

Now let's look at what you've written.

1. Terrorism against Civilians

Who doesn't commit terrorism against civilians? The US does it, Israel does it, Russia does it, the extremists do it etc, so does that make them all Nazis? I don't think so.. Terrorism is a tactic of warfare that existed long before the Nazis, the measure of whether it's a legitimate form of warfare is whether it's directed purely at unarmed civilians including women and children, or is it targeting the infrastructure of the nation they're fighting against and civilians are caught in the middle. All groups are guilty of targeting civilians directly.

2. Rabid 'Kill the Jews' Antisemitism

I'm not sure where you get this from Michael, but it is not a goal of any of the extremists groups that I'm aware of to commit genocide against the Jews on the level that the Nazis did, instead, those extremist groups want to either move the Jews out of Palestine or have them live there under an Islamic State.

That makes them very different from the Nazis.

3. Fanatical adherence to anti-individualist collectivism with blind obedience to the rule of a dictator, where the Islamic religion-state with a Caliph is in the place of German socialism with a Fuhrer

See this I disagree with also, the extremists don't have blind obedience to anyone, their nature is similar to that of the Khajarites who would rise up against and if necessary, kill their leaders if they felt their leaders were acting in a way which was inappropriate. It is the Wahhabis that encourage following a leader no matter what, but whilst bin Laden and other groups may agree with some of the Wahhabi teachings, their ideology is separate to the extent where they would have no problem calling a Muslim leader a non Muslim and making Takfir on them, meaning they could kill them.

Also, teachings of bin Laden indicate that he was not a believer in anti-individualist collectivism either, in fact if you read his letters and declarations he condemns the lack of protections of individual rights of those in Saudi Arabia and the abuse of political activists..

The above makes them very different from the Nazis

4. The attitude of the fanatics toward the Islamic religion is very similar to how the Nazi fanatics viewed the "master race" concept.

That is also an unfair idea. I as a Muslim believe my religion is 100% correct, that it is the perfect religion just like many Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc believe their religion is 100% Just like Objectivists believe their ideas are 100% correct and in believing that our beliefs are 100% correct, it is only natural to assume that other beliefs are not 100% correct and therefore, our beliefs are superior to others. So long as this doesn't lead to violence or oppression I see no problem with this.

I also don't think that the extremist groups like Al-Qaeda etc want to force Islam onto non Muslims, rather they want to have the lands that were part of the Islamic Caliphate ruled by Shariah law and to have the West stop interfering in these lands. The unfortunate thing about their beliefs is that their idea of what Shariah law is, is not the same as what most Muslims would agree with.

Nevertheless, when talking about a master race, that is excluding others who have no ability to change how they were born and what they were born as.. Such as the Jews who were not hated because of their religion, but because their ethnicity and never would the be accepted in Nazi society no matter what they did. Whereas the Islamists would accept Jews becoming Muslims and treat them as brothers and they'd even accept Jews living in an Islamic State as Dhimmis.

The Islamists don't hate Jews or anyone else at all for their religion nor their ethnicity, they hate Israel and call the Israelis the Jews because the Israelis call themselves that, it's very different from the Nazis who hated the Jews because they were Jews..

This too makes them very different from the Nazis.

This is why I say that there is a huge difference between the Nazis and the Islamists, that to compare them is not a logical link no matter how many times you might claim it.

It is also why I get offended by assertions that such groups are Nazi related, because whilst I don't subscribe to many of their ideology, I can appreciate where they are coming from in a lot of their arguments and can appreciate what has brought them to their thinking. I also get offended because if we start calling everyone Nazis, then we're diluting the memory of real monstrosity that the Nazi nightmare was, of which there is no comparison today and God willing never in the future.

But there is a fundamental ideological difference, as I noted earlier.

Dennis,

I see this as a difference of degree, not kind. See Tony's comment here:

Like 100's of thousands of Jews, my mother was borne and lived in an Arab country. This was Egypt, and fairly benevolent to its Jewish population - but she was aware strongly of a second-class status...

... you'll continue hearing the old cliche of :- we are not antisemites, but anti-Zionist.

Yeah, sure.

In other words, this is antisemitism, pure and simple.

Where is the "fundamental" difference? In the fact that one group (Nazis) wanted to relegate Jews to second-class status, then this morphed into killing them off, while the other group merely relegates Jews to second-class status without the ultimate killing?

I will grant you this. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what nationality practices it. So, yes, there exists antisemitic bigotry already in the Muslim world. But the Nazi component that is present in violent Islamist mobs is precisely that--the gratuitous violence against Jews with a feeling of total justification for doing that.

Notice that the KKK flourished in places where racism was widespread. It did not flourish elsewhere, like, say, Alaska or Rhode Island. But is there any "fundamental" difference between a member of the KKK and the normal run-of-the-mill racist? I say there is not--the anti-mind philosophical error is the same, but there is a difference in practice. Run-of-the-mill racists are generally not terrorists unless they adopt the ideological package of the KKK.

Ditto for my observations of the fundamentalist Islamists and Nazism. Without the Nazi stuff, they are simple bigots. With the Nazi stuff, they seek genocide of Jews. (I highly sympathize with their revulsion at having their lands controlled by foreigners who help the local tyrants by training their secret police, etc., but I don't mean Israel. Anyway, that is beside the point when discussing bigotry. A bigot with a legitimate grievance is just as much a bigot as one without a legitimate grievance. And bigotry is evil. Period.)

In problem-solving terms, I believe you have to expose the ugly Nazi element within the radical Muslim community and get Muslims to reject it. Then you can try to convince the bigots to not be bigots anymore.

If you try to do the contrary, the Islamist intellectuals who share the influence of the Nazi way will make sure they preach a solid enough backstory within their respective cultures to keep reason from taking hold--and I'm speaking specifically about anti-Jewish bigotry here, not other areas of applying reason.

Michael

Michael, please, how about you tell us exactly what the definition of Nazism is? Then please explain how you come to the conclusion based on the definition that there is a Nazi element within the radical Muslim community?

LM,

I stand up for you so you have the chance to post different views on this site and have them discussed intelligently.

You are free to present those views.

You are not free on OL to question my character and insult me to my face.

Michael,

Whilst I appreciate the fact that you stand up for my right to post on this forum, please don't assume that I'm going to be quiet when you start leveling out major insults against Muslims by accusing them of being Nazis.

It's an insult when you overstate the role of Nazism within the Muslim world during Amin's time. It's downright sensationalism and misrepresentation when you state that today's extremist groups are Nazis.. As I said, it would be appropriate for you to label some of those groups extremists, takfiris etc but the label of Nazi is inappropriate because they do not follow the Nazi ideology of a superior race nor the extermination of other races etc.

If you think that being called dishonest is insulting, perhaps consider how being called a Nazi would make someone feel?

As to the content of your post, my research does not bear out your opinions, but does bear out my interpretation. I have referenced this plenty here in the Mideast section. (For example, here's a great link-- for the umteenth time--to a site run by Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi: Tell Children The Truth.)

So I stand by what I wrote.

What I have said is also what is stated in the website link that you provided.

1921 Grand Mufti Against The Will of The People

The British, against the local Muslim vote, appoint Amin Al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Amin Al-Husseini came in a poor fourth place in the vote [v] . The Muslim community rejected his candidacy because he had not received any credible Islamic education. He was neither a Sheikh (religiously accredited leader) nor an Alim (Islamic scholar). He becomes the pre-eminent Arab power in Palestine. His brutality becomes notorious and is rejected by local Muslim leadership.

1922 Head of Supreme Muslim Council

Amin Al-Husseini is appointed Head of Supreme Muslim Council (1922-1937) [vi] . He is hugely disappointed by the end of the Ottoman Empire under Ataturk. Husseini becomes fanaticized by the idea that he must restore the lost Islamic Empire. He vows to fight all Muslim seculars.

Now in terms of the other groups of Muslims that Amin Al-Husseini organized to join the Nazis, such as the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar unit from Bosnia, it doesn't actually mention on that website you provided that BEFORE the Bosnian Muslims had joined the Nazis they were being persecuted by both the Serbs and the Communists. In fact the Serbian Cetnik commander Draža Mihailović had issued orders in 1941 to massacre the Muslim and Croat populations and in total around 150,000 Muslims were brutally massacred, not just killed but tortured and mutilated, just like the Serbs did in the 90's and a further 250,000 were expelled. So what were the Muslims to do then? What would you have done if no one else was coming to your aid, if you had the choice of either being massacred or having your rights to practice your beliefs taken away? The Bosnian Muslims didn't start joining the Nazis until 1943, long after they started getting massacred.

I might also remind you also that this phenomenon was not limited to the Bosnian Muslims, it was also occurring in Finland when the people were going to be taken over by the Soviet Union, they had no choice either but to fight for their own survival too.

Furthermore, any siding that populations of Muslims had with the Nazis in places such as Iraq were also due to the fact that the British had reneged on their promises to the Arabs and were occupying Arab lands, they wanted to liberate their lands from occupation. They took the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, just like the Jewish Lehi or Stern Gang did in approaching the Nazis.

Jihad is not just an Islamic concept, it's a universal concept

No. Jihad is not a universal concept. It is an Islamic concept. Jihad is ultimately the struggle to bring Islam to the world until the world is all for Allah. That is the last thing America is about (at least it was pre-Obama) and thank Gourd for that.

Hmmm that's not true at all. Jihad didn't begin with Islam, other religious groups in the region use the term too.. Heck I've even met some Christian Arabs named Jihad.

"...see for yourself how many people believe that people of the Jewish religion need to die.. I came across at the most a handful of people in the almost 2 years I spent in the Middle East in Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and the UAE

LM:

Out of curiosity, when you did travel there, what strata of the social structure did you travel in most of the time?

In other words, did you hang out with students and professionals? Or, were you able to get into the underbelly of those societies?

The internet cafe's off the beaten path where Arab Al Jazeera, hookahs and hashish were common?

Adam

I'm the type of person who likes to see all walks of life when I visit somewhere.

I spent time with international and local students and also attended different mosques, I spent time with foreign workers and locals as well as international students.. I did the same in any other place I visited.

The great thing is that Arabs and Turks are some of the most hospitable people in the world and will welcome you with open arms at any time.

I find that when visiting such places it's best to have a general idea of where you want to go and to allow yourself a lot of time to be distracted along the way by other people and their lives and to always accept every invitation to someone's house for tea or dinner. I also taught a wide range of students ranging from Priests from the Orthodox Church to Affluent people to refugees and started my own program to teach orphan children at a local school. It was great!

In terms of the underbelly, I did come across it, particularly in Aleppo where I had just arrived, I went wandering around and was invited into a nightclub where I found local officials sitting with Russian prostitutes and spending time with them.

I did come across lots of internet cafes too, oddly enough in Syria, most internet cafes are a place to openly watch porn. Hashish was definitely accessible as were other drugs and any other vice you might like to indulge.

LM,

Of course the term is correct, starting with the well-known pictures of the Grand Mufti with his pal Adolf Hitler.

I constantly hear you bring up the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.. As if he is somehow representative of a great portion of Muslims or Palestinians even, that is not the case.. He was not even appointed Grand Mufti by Muslims, he was made Grand Mufti by none other than the British so any such title was the responsibility of the British.

There were four candidates for the leadership and Al Husseini had received the least amount of votes and it was the British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel who appointed him as the Grand Mufti, which ALSO was not a position created by Muslims, rather a position created by the British. He was the one who appointed extremist teachers and preachers and spent the money the British gave which then taught children it was okay to hate Jews and his influence grew. He stoked the flames of hatred and it was all the creation of the British.

The people who were actually elected by the Muslims were the Nashashibis who were more inclined to make peace with the Jews and come to a settlement.. That was the will of the Palestinian Muslims and it was ignored..

But instead the British played the Muslims and Jews against each other like they've done to EVERY group in history to try and create a reason for them to continue their presence in Palestine, of which both the Arabs and the Jews began to resist..

Al-Husseini admired fascism and did approach the Nazis because the Nazis were against the British and sought assistance from the Nazis in fighting the British.. I might also remind you that the Jewish Lehi or Stern Gang ALSO admired fascism and ALSO approached the Nazis for assistance against the British. Later on members of the Stern Gang were also elected into government with one even becoming the Prime Minister.

THAT is the extent of it and it was all a creation and a result of the actions of the British in the area.

But more on point, the Nazis didn't ONLY believe that the Aryans were a superior race. They believed other things, too. Like the Jews needed to be exterminated.

That's not what made them Nazis Michael, hence the reason why I said that using the word Nazi isn't the correct word. You use the word Nazi because it has more shock value to it but the application of the label is not logical nor is it honest.

Just because the majority in the Islamic world don't believe the Jews need to be exterminated (even as they go along with the Zionist versus Jew bait and switch game), that doesn't seem to be the case with many Islamist leaders. Nor does that seem to be the case on countless broadcasts on Palestinian TV. The want the Jews eliminated, period. Do you really need quotes? They are abundant.

The Jews vs Zionist bait and switch game is not the fault of the Arabs, it is instead the fault of the Israelis themselves who identify themselves as the Jewish nation and oftentimes call themselves simply Jews and the Jewish people rather than Israelis and the Israeli people, the Arabs are just stupid and ignorant enough in their acceptance of the word usage which causes this to look as if it's hatred of an ethnicity or religious group rather than a political ideology and military occupation.

If anything else were the case then this type of hatred of Jews would have existed LONG before the influx of European Zionists to Palestine but it didn't.

As to the superior race thing, the name-change from Persia to Iran is pretty honking obvious.

Persia was an empire Michael, they wanted to distance themselves from the Empire so they called themselves Iran, home of the Aryans.. That didn't mean that they thought they were the superior race.

This stuff is all out in the open for anyone to see. I see no value in ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist--or using the tactic that "since X, Y or Z in the Islamic world doesn't believe it, this insinuates that nobody in the Islamic world believes it.".

No, but you overstate it Michael as if it's much bigger than it is which is dishonest. I challenge you to go to the Middle East and see for yourself how many people believe that people of the Jewish religion need to die.. I came across at the most a handful of people in the almost 2 years I spent in the Middle East in Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and the UAE.

I believe the good Muslims need to distance themselves from the evil Muslims as clearly as possible.

And they do. You just don't pay attention to it.

Intellectual clarity is your friend.

I would hope that you can somehow follow your own advice Michael.

Trouble is, it is not just Wahhabism that endorse Jihad. Every mainstream of Islamic jurisprudence endorses it.

Jihad means struggle or extra-ordinary effort. There are at least two ways the term is used:

1. Jihad = Holy War

2. Jihad = the struggle an individual must make to overcome his base inclinations. This is regarded by some Muslims as the greater Jihad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes both of you are correct.

There are many different forms of Jihad..

The greatest Jihad is the Jihad against one's sinful desires, because it is a battle that we must constantly face and no matter where we go, they'll always be there..

The lesser Jihad, is the Jihad of the Sword and every Islamic school endorses the Jihad of the Sword as acceptable and in fact obligatory when it comes liberating occupied lands under attack and occupation by non Muslims.. A smaller group of scholars say that it is also obligatory when the Muslim leadership becomes oppressive..

Jihad is not just an Islamic concept, it's a universal concept.. If the USA was invaded and occupied then the ensuing resistance against occupation would be considered a Jihad too.. When you fight to protect your nation from invaders in a defensive war to defend your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from oppression then there could be no greater Jihad of the Sword.

I came to understand that the Wahhabi sect was very strong but at least since this brand of Islam is only being exported and not practiced whole heartedly in the Muslim world means that there maybe a slight chance to undermine the orthodox strains of Islam from within the religion.

Mike,

There's not only a slight chance--it's actually happening. I mentioned somewhere that I believe that Islam is going through its own version of what happened to Christianity a few centuries ago. We don't see it produce instant results because these things take a long time to impact an entire culture. Basically, the way I see it happening, the older people die off as the younger break out of the bonds of inherited dogma through an increasing amount of literature and other media for spreading ideas. Marginalizing fundamentalism to the edge of the fringe does not happen from one day to the next, but it does happen.

Think about this. Not all Islamist fundamentalism involves Wahhabism.

But all rabidly antisemitic Islamist fundamentalism involves an intellectual mixture of Islam + Nazism.

I often get frustrated when I see people ignoring the Nazi part. That's a truly toxic source of evil in the mix.

By analogy, Islam (like any religion or philosophy) is like nuclear power. It can be used for good or for blowing up stuff. You need the people who want to blow up stuff to use it for that, just as you need the people who want to light up cities to use it for that.

Islam in the hands of people of good character tends to have a good influence on them. They have their communities, they live normal lives in peace, etc. There are hundreds of millions of people the world over to look at who are like this. All anyone has to do is look.

Islam in the hands of people of bad character results in bigoted hatred, brainwashing, suicide bombing, etc. That's easy to see, too. We certainly get help with looking at that part through the media.

My point is that hatred is not inherent in a body of ideas, but instead in the people who choose to hate.

So what about Nazism? Is this true here, also? The way I see it, Nazism as a formal body of ideas has been eradicated, but there were many people left over who had adopted genocide, thinking with fists, etc., from the Nazi culture as intimate parts of their epistemology. These people flourished in the Islamic world--with the help of the USA and England, I might add (we hired them as spies against the communists). When they organized, is it any wonder that they sought an interpretation of their religion that focused on genocide, thinking with fists, etc.?

People ignore this. I don't know why, but it's like quicksand. You can get folks to see it for a day or two, then it gets sucked down into to earth as folks go back to overgeneralizing about the entire religious culture and targeting good people along with the bad.

One thing is for sure. If you aim at the wrong target, you will probably miss the one you should have taken out.

Michael

I'm not sure that the term Nazism is correct Michael.

Nazism was an ideology that believed that the Aryans were a superior race to any other. The ideology of the extremists does not only not believe that about the Aryans, but doesn't believe it about the Arabs either. In fact, out of any Muslim group you will find a much greater diversity of racial groups and the least amount of racism amongst the Salafis, Wahhabis and Takfiris.

Nazis also believed in exterminating other groups and races like the Gypsies and the Jews, the extremists don't see this as their goal either. Such extremism doesn't promote genocide. Rather it sees the 'Christian West' and the 'Israeli Jews' as a huge threat to the Muslim world and believes that they must fight against them. It doesn't promote killing every single one but rather would prefer to fight them until the threat no longer exists in its current form. For example, the End of US influence in the Middle East and support of dictators in the region and the liberation of Palestine from Israeli military occupation..

I think you'll find that Baal is more of a Nazi than those extremist groups with his genocidal ideas.

The Westminster Institute (Virginia): Educating the Public and Government About the Ideology of the Terrorists, and Ways to Counter It

Sayyid Qutb, Milestones

Abdullah Azzam, The Defense of the Muslim Lands

Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Knights Under The Prophet's Banner

Brigadier S.K. Malik, The Quranic Concept of Power

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/ibn-warraq-the-westminster-institute-virginia-educating-the-public-and-government-about-the-ideology-4.html#more

I'm not sure that I agree that Abdullah Azzam's ideas were that of a terrorist actually.

A 2007 article in the UK Independent (link below) is one of many articles and studies published about the sect's influence in Islam. The Wahhabi's have had the support of the Saudi monarchy when they took power and even before that. During the 18th century the scholar Muhammad al-Wahhab was taken under the wing of the House of Saud when the cleric taught two of ibn-Saud's brothers. The Saudi chief later made a pact to implement the cleric's teachings in the places the Saudi's controlled and conquered.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wahhabism-a-deadly-scripture-398516.html

Hmmm Wahhabism only has money behind it.. Nothing more, if it weren't for that their influence would be a great deal smaller. If anything, the influence of Wahhabism is diminishing now with the Arab revolutions and in terms of Europe, the influx of Turkish immigrants into Europe is taking away much of that influence...

As far as the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in Shi'a it is quite extensive. Clerics or scholars from the Ikhwan, for example, influenced Ayatollah Khomeini. If you noticed Iran publicly supported the uprising against Hosni Mubarak obviously because they knew the MB had something to do or ultimately benefit from the rebellion.

I believe Islam as practiced in Egypt (while officially Sunni) resembles Shi'a Islam more.

What do you base such assertions on? I've never ever heard someone make such claims about the Ikhwan.. I think perhaps you might be confused with the differences in the ideologies of the Ikhwan vs Shia Islam.. They're quite different..

Bob.

OL is not a site to preach genocide. Take that crap somewhere else.

I did no such thing. I said the Muslims will destroy each other. We will not have to lift a finger. Look at the newspapers, Scout. Who is killing the most Muslims today? Answer: other Muslims, which is exactly what I wrote. And wishing they were all gone is not preaching genocide. It is wishful thinking. Is it forbidden to wish others bad luck?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I asked if you think Islam and Muslims need to be wiped out, you responded with a yes and then tried to say that it would be Muslims who killed each other.

But ultimately it was a yes in support of Muslims and Islams being wiped out.. No matter who does it, wanting a group of people to be wiped out IS in fact Genocidal and you therefore you are indeed genocidal.. If someone had said that in response to the question, do you think all Jews should be wiped out then the world would label them the same.

<br /><br /><br />

Yes. The last two Muslims left alive after Muslims mostly kill each other off, will mutually kill each other and we will have Peace At Last.

Read the newspapers. Muslims are doing a bang up job of wiping each other out.

All the rest of us have to do is wait. The Religion of Peace will work its magic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You seemed genocidal enough to be like that.. I'm not surprised

Since the Wahabbis have dominated Sunni Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood has influenced not only the Sunni but largely the Shia sect their point of view will be the dominate voices in the faith. Hence, the radicalization of Muslims and the hatred the fundamentalists espouse will not go away.

I read one statistic that over 80% of the Mosques around the world and the madrasas that teach the religion in Middle Eastern countries are dominated by Wahabbist teachings and Wahabbi scholars. By default they and the Ikhwan make up what is to be known as Islam. The only way to stop this so other points of view in Islam can emerge are to force the Saudis supporting the Wahabbis and the Syrians and Iranians who support the Muslim Brotherhood to shut their funding spigots shut off.

I disagree with the notion that Wahhabis have dominated Sunni Islam.. I also disagree with the notion that the Muslim Bortherhood has influenced the Shia..

The Wahhabis do give a lot of money, but a lot of communities raise there own. They're wary of the Wahhabis.

LM:

A significant correction. The US is not a democracy. It is a representative Constitutional republic. Huge difference, but we are still responsible for what the nation does in our names.

Adam

I'm sorry Selene I was referring in general to the West, that they are inherently democratic nations with the ability to elect representatives and leaders to act in their name.

Not in the purest form of the word.

I don't answer hypothetical questions. I answer real questions pertain to here and now existing facts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So answer this. Do you think that Islam and Muslims should be wiped out. That's not hypothetical.

LM:

Lol!

Unfortunate that is has become like this of course.

Adam

Ah yes, very unfortunate. Democracy is a responsibility, it is the responsibility of all of us to stand up and make sure that the people we elect into power are not doing things in our name which do not represent us. It's unfortunate that we've become so engrossed in American Idol, MTV, Reality TV, Football etc that we no longer pay attention to this..

Some would argue that because it is a democracy, we are ultimately responsible for what is done in our name, and that we share guilt for those actions.. At the very least I believe it makes us criminally negligent.. Especially when people overseas suffer due to our nation's actions in the region..

LM:

Some crazy Russian lady created the parable of the Oak tree in the first chapter of Atlas. It clearly supports your argument, unfortunately.

The Oak Tree represents the United States. He describes the tree, "Its roots clutched the hill like a fist with fingers sunk into the soil, and he thought that if a giant were to seize it by the top, he would not be able to uproot it, but would swing the hill and the whole of the earth with it."

This passage aptly describes the financial and technological power of the United States. The reference to giants is interestingly coincidental, or perhaps not. Perhaps the reference is purposeful warning us of the return of the Nephilim. This is also the second reference to lightning in the book. The first describes, "High on the side of a tower there was a crack in the shape of motionless lightning, the length of ten stories." The second reference to lightning splits the oak tree in half.

Eddie remembers childhood summers on the Taggart estate with the Taggart children, for whom he now works. During Eddie's childhood, a hundred-year-old oak tree stands on a hill over the Hudson River. At age seven, Eddie feels safe in the tree's strength. Then it is struck by lightning, breaking it in half, revealing an empty shell. The trunk was only an empty shell; its heart had rotted away long ago; there was nothing inside – just a thin gray dust that was being dispersed by the whim of the faintest wind. The living power had gone, and the shape it left had not been able to stand without it.

The above section is a compilation of critical analyses of the parable in Atlas.

Adam

I know Shayne will not cede that this parable is an argument, but of course it is.

Wow! Very Interesting! I'm glad that she agreed..

Though I'm not quite sure why that is unfortunate? In the fact that it has become like this or that she agreed with me?

If my Grandmother had balls, would she be my Grandfather?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm sorry I don't understand.. But please answer the question.. If you had the power to do so, would you launch a war against Islam and Muslims and try and rid the world against us?

LM,

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I moved here after 32 years in Brazil. America looks fine to me. There's a lot of media stuff about doom and gloom, and the job market ain't that good, but I have yet to see widespread hunger, etc.

The opposite of 9% unemployment is 91% employment.

Does 91% mean "over" to you?

On the intellectual front, there's a Tea Party movement raising public awareness of the Progressive attempt to replace the code of the Founding Fathers from early education on. The very fact that this is now in the mainstream news and is an item of serious debate in current elections shows me that it is not "over."

I have no idea what you mean by "America is over." It sounds effective as a hot-button phrase, but I can't find any conceptual referents for it that are valid. So far, in my thinking, these are just empty words that reflect a smidgen of contention and little else.

It's like someone saying, "Islam is over."

Cognitively, it means nothing. In normative terms, it's on the level of sticking your tongue out at someone.

Michael

Michael the America of today is a mere shell of the America the Founding Fathers helped to create.. The shell still looks the same, but the yolk has become rotten on the inside because there has been too many years of prosperity that has placated Americans.. Thomas Jefferson was right when he said:

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."

He also stated that:

"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

This hasn't happened in a long time.. And so now we have the Military Industrial Complex, The International Banking Cartels, The Federal Reserve etc running the nation and as a result, the US no longer sincerely stands for the ideals of the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence.. It has been hijacked and this is the reason why I stated that Americans need to take the US back from the hands of those tyrants.. Until this happens America is and will continue to be "over"..

I don't find this to be a good thing, it's a horrible thing for Americans to be so ignorant and blind to the horrors and atrocities committed in their name, and they will soon find themselves as slaves, just like Jefferson warned. What's worse is that unfortunately we make ourselves criminally negligent when we allow the governments elected to represent us to go and murder millions of innocent people who didn't deserve it at the bidding of the military industrial complex and the international bankers.

Then we wonder why people in other countries hate us and take great offense to when they attack us after begging us for years to cease our government's behavior that harms them? That above all is the worst part.. You know this very clearly Michael when looking at the US Government's role in Latin America and how many Latin Americans have suffered greatly at the hands of US Foreign Policy in keeping dictators and tyrants in power and supporting them while Americans slept soundly at night, unaware of what was happening in their name..

I will let a pious muslim speak for me:

http://www.translati...i-want-sex.html

Perhaps you should listen to what he said if you're letting him speak for you.. At no point did that mention maids, it was talking about slaves.. I also take issue with the fact that the person who posted the video put less than 50% of the actual comments from the person speaking, it seems to me he was going into further explanation towards the end as to what the slavery entails, which would have benefited you if you truly intend to learn.