Richard Wiig

Why have my comments not been allowed on here? Please enlighten me. I know that I'm on moderation, but surely if that's the the case you've got a responsibilty to be fair about it? If you'd rather just ban me, then please ban me rather than leaving me in limbo effectively treated as banned. Richard

Well, Marxism (big M) is anything but anti-Industrial... It is anti-rational, so it is anti the very foundations of industrial civilisation. It's hard not to conlude that it is anti-industrial.

Can you think of anyone living in a civilized country who would defend cruelty toward animals as moral? Vivisection is arguably cruel, but I defend it as moral if it leads to an enhancement of human life.

I have to question whether peoples concern here is truly about concern for the abused animal, as opposed hatred of whoever is doing the abusing. Do you feel the same concern when a cheetah tears an antelope apart piece by piece while it's alive and terrified? Do you want to rescue the antelope for its fate? Or do you view it with no disgust, no hate, no real concern for the antelope at all? What about animals, such as cats, that will torment another animal to death simply for the playfulness of it?

Actually, it's more like a sign of our regression back to barbarism.

If someone is cruel to animal, whose rights have they violated?

Here's an interesting case of a woman raping a man: A woman who was to be the victim of an armed robbery has turned the tables on her attacker, subjecting him to a three-day sex ordeal that left him with torn genitals. The incident happened in the Russian town of Meshchovsk when Viktor Jasinkski tried to rob 28-year-old hairdresser, Olga Zajac... http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/9833210/hairdresser-turned-thief-into-sex-slave/

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 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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904292504576482563347097284.html

Don't forget Turkey.

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. Until they "feel themselves subdued" to Allah's law, which it's the states job to implement. Allah's law, by its very nature, violates rights and, imposing it divides people along religious and cultural lines. The Jizya is a divisive religious tax. 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. The very nature of having a special tax for non-muslims is divisive and relegates non-muslims to an inferior status, but we also know that isn't the start and finish of Shariah treating muslims and non-muslims differently. There are a numerous other laws that relegate non-muslims to second class status. 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. Historically there's been degrees of zealousness in implementing the laws, but the foundations have always remained the same. When hardliners take over, it is because it is religioiusly sanctioned for them to do so. Their more tolerant co-religionists laxity doesn't alter that. 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. That will require changes to Sharia, which means reforming Islam, something that isn't in the wind anytime soon. Regardless of whether or not Islam transforms itself, and I hope it does, for the sake of muslims it must, it's really up to non-muslims to to protect themselves. They can't rely on Islam reforming itself. It's simply something they should never ever submit to.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/H4C27dXqE-I?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

I think it was Hassan Al Bana who first started the Muslim Brotherhood, from which Al Qaeda and similar groups sprang, and not Qutb. Qutb is merely one of many, many, many, Islamic ideologues that have taken Islamic supremacism seriously throughout the history of Islam. Islam has been militantly imperialistic from it's medina period, and especially after the death of Muhammad. Todays jihad is nothing new, it's merely set in a modern context.

No it's not. It's spelt "Qutb", and why not put it in ethics? Qutb's stance is based on his ethics.

Values have to be created by thought and practical effort. Honesty, in itself, provides you with nothing. It is an essential pre-condition though to creating values, and more broadly than the personal, it's essential across society for creating a climate that's conducive to creating values. All that aside, the integrity that you have for upholding property rights: how exactly has that detracted from your life?

An in depth and superb essay by Andrew G. Bostom Understanding the Jihad Against Israel and America The transcript of my speech today at the national meeting of ACT for America. June 24, 2011 - 12:00 am - by Andrew G. Bostom The late Southern Sudanese leader John Garang, in 1999, posed the following dual-part existential question for our era: Is the call for jihad against a particular people a religious right of those calling for it, or is it a human rights violation against the people upon whom jihad is declared and waged? As I hope to make plain, the answer to both parts of John Garang’s query is “Yes!” http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/understanding-the-jihad-against-israel-and-america/?singlepage=true

The person who wrote this article clearly doesn't know much about NZ or Australia. NZ, a country on the verge of reintroducing price controls on bread and milk is one of the economically freest? Pull the other one. The Australian government, little more than a week ago, with the stroke of a pen, shut down an entire industry - the live cattle export industry - for 6 months, putting people out of work and no doubt sending many farms to the wall.

Are you saying that the teachings of Islam cannot lead to hatred of the Jews?

One strike for Western freedom of speech and resistance of Islamic law in the West (Only just. That he was even on trial shows that the foot is in the door) Dutch Court Acquits Lawmaker of Hate Speech for Anti-Islam Comments And one strike for Islamic law Man sentenced to death for blasphemy http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/22/man-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy.html

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.

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 Sure, but there is only one that concerns us. I don't give a damn about someone striving to overcome their drinking problem, or not lust after their neighbours wife. I do give a damn when they are striving to let loose in a London hotel with machineguns and handgrenades.

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

People ignore this Which people ignore this? The collaboration between fundamentalist Islam and the Nazis is well noted and documented by those at the forefront of opposing Islamic jihad. How does that equate to ignoring it? What is different between you and them is the importance you attach to the influence of the nazis. You seem to be saying that without a Nazis influence Islam would be peaceful and co-exist harmoniously with non-muslims. Such a view ignores the history of Islam pre-nazi era. What is happening today is actually a revival of Islam as it was pre-nazi. Jihad is nothing new.

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