Richard Wiig

It would be nice if they encouraged them to go before they start dropping the bombs, rather than stopping them at the borders.

Is there a religion that is not based on submission?

I don't think that's relevant if the focus is Islam, unless it's to highlight any differences. Islam brings submission to the fore in a way that I don't think other religions do. It's very name means submission to Allah.

It is also a religion of the sword and incompatible with freedom.

If Islam is a religion of peace, then why did Peikoff want to attack Iran?

Why is attacking Iran is an okay thing to do (because of Islam) but saying bad things about Islam is bigotry?

Why is it okay to criticize Objectivism and Ayn Rand but not okay to criticize Islam and Muhammad?

If saying bad things about Islam is bigotry, then the Koran has to be one of the most bigotted books ever written. Perhaps Muslims should burn it.

It's not that I say bad things about Islam, it's the way I say it that Michael doesn't like. I am no bigot, but I say things in a manner that he doesn't like, so in his eyes that makes me a bigot. No matter that I don't collectively judge all muslims as sharia supporters, or as jihadists, or as haters of non-muslims, etc.

I hope you're not calling ALL Muslims submissive. It'd be terrible to think that there's more than one bigot in this thread.

It is the doctrine and dogma that requires submission. Individuals have the power to deviate from dogma as much as the please or dare.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That is pretty much stating the obvious. Islam does require submission though. Islam means submission.

I hope you're not calling ALL Muslims submissive. It'd be terrible to think that there's more than one bigot in this thread.

You haven't answered my question about the relevance of any relationships I've had with muslims.

But I did.

This guy flouting friendships with Muslims has the same meaning as Southern racists saying some of their best friends are black.

It's a statement aimed at trying to pretend the bigot is reasonable and the bigotry is not bigotry.

If you swallow it as reasonable and wait, the bigot always goes back to preaching bigotry openly. Just like this guy has done over and over.

So it's a manipulation tactic for short-term advantage and nothing more.

Michael

I wasn't asking you, I was asking Adam. I was expecting an agenda from him. As for my raising my friendship with muslims being just more evidence of my bigotry to you, it reminds of what used to happen to people accused of witchcraft. If you deny that you are a witch, it's clear evidence that you are a witch.

Islam is a religion of peace certainly doesn't reflect the status quo in the Western sense. Peace needs to be examined on Islamic terms, not on what you and I both take it to mean. Peace is when Dar al-Harb has come under Dar al-Islam. Peace will reign when Islam reigns. In that sense, it is certainly a religion of peace.

Islam is also a religion of submission.

You relentlessly tell everyone what you are doing and why when you fight this expression of fascism. (If you, a young male Muslim, have no fascist state to repair to and fight for you are militarily unemployed and unemployable and lack a true jihad inner compulsion.) If that fascist state is attacked for its fascist expression of exportable and exported terrorism you don't wage war against it because it's a Muslim state, but because it is a supporter-of-terrorism state using some diagram sketched out over a thousand years ago by a desert bandit.

--Brant

and you add what to this?

But it is not seen as fascism by those who are attracted to it. It is seen as morally correct, and that doesn't emanate from what you've termed the fascist state. It emanates from Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah. It is an Islamic state, and we are in a position where we must attack it, if we wish to defend ourselves, precisely because it is choosing Islam.

That is an inescapable fact.

but because it is a supporter-of-terrorism state using some diagram sketched out over a thousand years ago by a desert bandit.

Yeah, but we aren't going to war with Indonesia even though there are more Muslims there than any other country on Earth.

--Brant

the only Muslim terrorist out of Indonesia to the United States I'm aware of the the current POTUS

Of course we are not going to war with Indonesia. We are not going to war with Iraq either, but there we are in Iraq fighting. As for terrorists out of Indonesia, there are plenty of them, and the Bali bombers didn't discriminate between Australians and Americans.

Our leaders are lying to us. Whether or not they are lying to themselves too, I do not know, but I know that you cannot tackle the problem by lying about it.

Let's stay on point here.

The unity of religion and law is a serious problem in Islam.

There we, and Muslim friends of mine agree.

How much contact have you directly had with Muslim families?

That is a completely "non-trap question."

A...

What is the relevance of that? The most I have had to do with muslims is in Indonesia, where I met many wonderfully friendly muslims, and befriended one in particular, who a mate and I befriended after she was robbed on the bus we were travelling on. I know there are many decent muslims. This is not the issue is it?

You try too hard.

All you needed to tell me was the Indonesia part.

Interesting.

A...

I wasn't trying anything, Adam. I'm wondering what point you are making, if any. I wish you'd just be straight up rather than always oblique and obscure. You haven't answered my question about the relevance of any relationships I've had with muslims.

You relentlessly tell everyone what you are doing and why when you fight this expression of fascism. (If you, a young male Muslim, have no fascist state to repair to and fight for you are militarily unemployed and unemployable and lack a true jihad inner compulsion.) If that fascist state is attacked for its fascist expression of exportable and exported terrorism you don't wage war against it because it's a Muslim state, but because it is a supporter-of-terrorism state using some diagram sketched out over a thousand years ago by a desert bandit.

--Brant

and you add what to this?

But it is not seen as fascism by those who are attracted to it. It is seen as morally correct, and that doesn't emanate from what you've termed the fascist state. It emanates from Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah. It is an Islamic state, and we are in a position where we must attack it, if we wish to defend ourselves, precisely because it is choosing Islam.

That is an inescapable fact.

but because it is a supporter-of-terrorism state using some diagram sketched out over a thousand years ago by a desert bandit.

Our leaders are lying to us. Whether or not they are lying to themselves too, I do not know, but I know that you cannot tackle the problem by lying about it.

Let's stay on point here.

The unity of religion and law is a serious problem in Islam.

There we, and Muslim friends of mine agree.

How much contact have you directly had with Muslim families?

That is a completely "non-trap question."

A...

What is the relevance of that? The most I have had to do with muslims is in Indonesia, where I met many wonderfully friendly muslims, and befriended one in particular, who a mate and I befriended after she was robbed on the bus we were travelling on. I know there are many decent muslims. This is not the issue is it?

Good, so you do accept the "fact" that the words attributed to the big M are not necessarily his, correct?

He has a completely oral record as far as I understand.

A lot like the J man from Bethlehem.

A...

It doesn't matter whether they are his or not (there is apparently some question over whether Muhammad even existed), it is what mainstream Islam has accepted that matters. Mainstream Islam treats Muhammad as if he did exist, as if he did say those things, and it has based Islamic jurisprudence on that acceptance. Currently Western leaders are taking great pains to separate Islam from the actions of the global jihadists, while the global Jihadists themselves explicitly ground their actions in mainstream Islam. Our leaders are lying to us. Whether or not they are lying to themselves too, I do not know, but I know that you cannot tackle the problem by lying about it.

They're Islamic, all right. There's plenty of fascism in Islam for those who want it. Those who want it and use it. If against fellow Muslims, that's their problem. They can ask for help. Against "Infidels" the Infidels get to shoot them. This is self defense. Those who are not fascist get left alone.

--Brant

bloodthirsty SOB

Not disagreeing with you, but that really is only half the battle.

When Muhammad said in the Hadith, kill those who leave their (Islamic) religion, it is clearcut. I trust any muslim, or anyone, who doesn't act to evade or obscure those kinds of facts. A Muslim who does not do that, is an honest Muslim. I guess that is what I seek. Honesty. But it is in very short supply.

I just realized something important about your assumptions about Islam.

Which Hadith is the one that you are referring to above?

A...

What are my assumptions, Adam?

I think you will find them al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. There are many examples of Muhammad saying kill those who leave their religion. This is what the apostasy laws are based on. All mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence sanction death for apostasy. This is not something I have assumed, Adam. It is a fact.

The soft bigotry of low expectations. Right, never heard it before - but very good.

It explains "double standards"; and guilty attitudes of the West toward African and other 'backward' countries; and why radical Muslims are sometimes excused their 'excesses', or appeased.

The other side of the coin is the unreasonably high standard demanded of the West - a perfection that cannot be achieved. We should not have given flu to the natives. We should not have traded land for rugs. We should not have... and we should all feel collective guilt for it. Sadly many people have taken it on.

It's basic subjectivism, stating: We will judge everyone changeably, either by your own high standards which some hold, or, by our own low expectations of you (hardly ever by objective and civilised standards).

Objective standards are the enemy.

When are many, many more going to stand up and join them, for themselves and in defence of the integrity of their religion?

Brant: Richard seems to want to fight a religion. Good luck with that.

No. I want to see the jihadists made impotent. An essential part of achieving that is a widespread understanding of their ideology. Political correctness, multiculturalism, and all the other PC crap that abounds will probably ensure that never happens.

Brant: Perhaps only those at the top of jihadism (and ISIS) who publicly default in all cases to a crappy theology

Their crappy ideology comes from Muhammad himself. This is what is being evaded, and a major reason why we are losing. Unless things change, we will lose.

Brant: The war is against fascism but can't be properly fought if what is really going on is kept under a rock.

What's really going on is that fanatical muslims are seeking to reestablish the Caliphate and dominate the world under Islam in accordance with the teachings of their prophet Muhammad. This is not about abstract principles of fascism, but a specific kind of fascism. If people are incapable of recognising it, due to ignorance fostered and sustained by political correctness, then they cannot possibly fight it. They are like possums in the headlights. That's why we send soldiers to foreign countries to fight, while those soldiers hometowns become breeding grounds for the very enemy they've gone to other lands to fight. Sheer suicidal insanity. Hopefully the days of political correctness are numbered. It might be the case, given that more leftists appear to be waking up and joining the ranks of "the bigots".

Sure, educate about the Muslim religion. I'm all for that. Those seeking to establish the Caliphate, however, are merely riding the Muslim horse. Shoot them off and the horse drinks and eats and sleeps and fucks the mares. The horse itself, however, is a figment of a Muslim imagination. Shoot the "horse" and there's 1.3 billion to shoot to go.

Good luck with that!

--Brant

Merely riding the Muslim horse? What do you mean by that exactly? Are you suggesting they are not really Islamic?

Good luck with that!

It should be amply clear to you that I am not out to destroy Islam. It would be absurd.

Richard seems to want to fight a religion. Good luck with that.

No. I want to see the jihadists made impotent. An essential part of achieving that is a widespread understanding of their ideology. Political correctness, multiculturalism, and all the other PC crap that abounds will probably ensure that never happens.

Perhaps only those at the top of jihadism (and ISIS) who publicly default in all cases to a crappy theology

Their crappy ideology comes from Muhammad himself. This is what is being evaded, and a major reason why we are losing. Unless things change, we will lose.

The war is against fascism but can't be properly fought if what is really going on is kept under a rock.

What's really going on is that fanatical muslims are seeking to reestablish the Caliphate and dominate the world under Islam in accordance with the teachings of their prophet Muhammad. This is not about abstract principles of fascism, but a specific kind of fascism. If people are incapable of recognising it, due to ignorance fostered and sustained by political correctness, then they cannot possibly fight it. They are like possums in the headlights. That's why we send soldiers to foreign countries to fight, while those soldiers hometowns become breeding grounds for the very enemy they've gone to other lands to fight. Sheer suicidal insanity. Hopefully the days of political correctness are numbered. It might be the case, given that more leftists appear to be waking up and joining the ranks of "the bigots".

I trust anyone, muslim or otherwise, who doesn't shy away from the truth.

Ah, "the truth," quite an evasive and clever entity it is...

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

So Richard...

“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.”

Careful, think this through before you answer...

A...

My comment should be pretty clear. It was not referring to "The Truth, but the truth about Islam. If you're suggesting to me that there's no such thing, that Islam's content is so amorphous as to conform to anyone and everyones wishes, then it's as good as saying that there is no Islam. However, that isn't the case. When Muhammad said in the Hadith, kill those who leave their (Islamic) religion, it is clearcut. I trust any muslim, or anyone, who doesn't act to evade or obscure those kinds of facts. A Muslim who does not do that, is an honest Muslim. I guess that is what I seek. Honesty. But it is in very short supply.

There's a profound thought I've seen by Nathaniel Branden, which roughly goes along the lines of:- Holding another person to the lowest standards, or no standards, is an expression, not of acceptance, but of contempt.

In other words, you don't think he/she is worthy, so don't expect anything of them.

I've seen it termed, the soft bigotry of low expectations. I think it is true.

It's not surprising that ISIS is finding many recruits from western cities. Secular collectivism and mystical collectivism morph from one to the other and back again, over time, "different sides of the same counterfeit coin" as Rand had it. Some of those dulled, purposeless, unemployed men (and girls) from Birmingham* etc., are easy game for a Crusading Cause. After all, the need to find self-esteem and purpose is universal in man, even to the desperate extent of trying to find personal identity in a gang which promises murder, destruction and martyrdom, all rationalized by superstitious dogma.

(*An English friend told me of one family in his home village, in which three generations of men have survived off State welfare, and not worked a day in their lives - and who brag about it).

It's the nature abhors a vacuum principle. There is a vacuum everywhere you look.

"Rachida Dati, the mayor of Paris' 7th arrondissement and the daughter of Algerian immigrants, called for an end to the "confounding of Islam and fundamentalism, as the French political class has done for too long." The paper on Friday apologized for what it called a "clumsy" question."

The welfare system is of course there for the takers, so why not.

The first news article:

PARIS -- In tweets, in street gatherings and in open letters, moderate Muslims around the world are insisting that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)extremists don't speak for their religion.

They can insist that all they want, but it will never change the fact. ISIS do speak for their religion. They implement what Muhammad taught them, without compromise.

Many are also frustrated that anyone might think they do, and a backlash has already begun.

A backlash against those who think they do, such as myself? How does this help put an end to the problem within Islam? It doesn't. In fact, it achieves the opposite, by ensuring that the focus is taken away from the root of the problem. You don't fix a problem by avoiding a problem.

" Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, told hundreds of Muslims Friday, according to Reuters. "Islam demands respect of life ... The Koran tells us that to kill one man is to kill all humanity," he said.

Daily Boubakeur is either ignorant, or deceptive. Here is the verse he superficially refers to:

“[005:032] On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

Given that an excess in the land can be something as simple as drawing a Muhammad cartoon, the verse above is somewhat problematic. Useful though for fooling people who don't care to take a closer look or apply some critical thought.

.The head of France's largest mosque called for Muslims to rally Friday in Paris to condemn Gourdel's slaying and show unity against terrorism, saying Islamic State's "deadly ideology" had nothing to do with Islam.

An outright lie. The head of France's largest mosque cannot help but know that the global jihadists back all of their actions by reference to Islam.

Within hours of the call, the rector of the Bordeaux mosque, Tareq Oubrou, said French Muslims need not demonstrate in the name of Islam - but should be joined by everyone.

Another shifting of the focus away from the actual problem, which again does nothing but perpetuate the problem.

Nowhere does the Quran say other religions or nations must be attacked. Cutting people's heads off is really the most despicable. If airstrikes can stop these fundamentalist, aggressive ideas from spreading, I am all for it," said 65-year-old Enes Mustafic.

The cutting of necks:

Sahih International: So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

The fighting of other religions or nations:

Qur'an (8:39) - “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” Translation from the Noble Quran

Qur'an (9:29) - "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." Suras 9 and 5 are the last "revelations" that Muhammad handed down - hence abrogating what came before, which includes the oft-quoted verse 2:256 -"Let there be no compulsion in religion...".

"According to Islam, nobody is allowed to be evil to others. Nobody has the right to do such a thing. I am against everything they do down there like every sane person is," Jamak said.

There is of course nothing evil in Islam, because Muhammad and Allah are perfect. So when Muhammad command his followers to murder, or Allah commands his believers to fight until the world is all for Allah, by smiting necks and all, it is not evil. Allah cannot be evil. Unbelief is evil.

An online poll posted by France's Le Figaro newspaper, asking whether people thought the country's Muslim community had sufficiently denounced Gourdel's death, drew an infuriated response.

Why? I love Ayn Rands judge and prepare to be judged. It is a valid question as to whether or not the Muslim community is giving an adequate response. This is not play school. It is murder, rape, terror, pillage, enslavement, misery and the utmost human despair because of these evil cunts. Muslims should be asking themselves whether or not they're giving and adequate and efficacious response. Lives are on the line and the future of Islam.

Rachida Dati, the mayor of Paris' 7th arrondissement and the daughter of Algerian immigrants, called for an end to the "confounding of Islam and fundamentalism, as the French political class has done for too long." The paper on Friday apologized for what it called a "clumsy" question.

More deflection.

Dawud Walid, director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said headlines about the Islamic State were often frustrating in his work. Walid said he's been speaking out against excessive force by police after the fatal shooting of a young black man in Ferguson, Missouri.

More self-pity over what people think of Islam. This article, as are the others, are full of it.

Still, the banner at Friday's gathering in Paris honoring Gourdel was emblazoned with "Not in My Name" and many in the crowd of about 500 said they were dismayed and appalled.

And probably about as effective as Michele Obama's hashtag of "bring back our girls". Incidentally, Boko Haram have enslaved hundreds more women since then and continue to advance.

"We all gathered today ... to tell people, you want to convert, that's very good, but do it for your faith, because you want to convert and because you appreciate this religion. Don't do it to go fight, to go kill people because it is not what Islam says," said Nadir M'Sallaoui, a 27-year-old Parisian.

Another who is either ignorant or deceptive. Islam does say go and fight. It also tells followers not to think for themselves, but to submit.

'...and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.' (Surah Baqarah: 216)

. Muslim leaders and scholars issued an open letter Wednesday denouncing ISIS militants point by point, notably on "the killing of innocents" and jihad.

It would be interesting to read Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's - a man with a PHD in Islamic studies - response, if he gives one. He might just sneer at it. I have not seen this open letter, but it would be foolish to simply accept it as true opposition to ISIS.

Muqtedar Khan, professor of political science at the University of Delaware and author of "American Muslims, Bridging Faith and Freedom," said Muslim condemnations after the 9/11 attacks failed to dent the reach of extremists.

Of course it will fail to dent them. They need to show that what those pious muslims are doing is not what Muhammad and Allah want. They are incapable of this though.

"They are beginning to react the way they should have on Sept. 12, 2001," Khan said. "Muslims have gotten really tired of these groups that bring nothing, that have no positive impact at all among their societies."

They're really tired? Boohoo! They can jump up and down all they like, but the Jihadists will simply sneer at them, and then blow them up if they can. What is needed is a real addressing of the problem.

Khan said whether the protests take root will depend upon what happens when the beheadings have subsided, and ISIS is no longer considered an immediate threat.

That is just crazy. ISIS will simply subside? How? Why? When? WTF????? Currently muslims are flocking to ISIS from around the world. ISIS is growing, even with the airstrikes.

Muslim leaders will have difficulty coming up with a message as attractive as the extremists' sermons to young people disillusioned with life in countries where they feel under constant suspicion. France's ban on face-covering veils and prohibitions on wearing headscarves in schools, for example, are often cited as proof the country is hostile to Muslims.

Another call for non-muslims to relax about Islam and not pressure anyone. Move along, nothing to see here.

Speaking of the extremist preachers, Khan said: "Their theology becomes more potent because their politics are right."

This is just downright sinister. In other words, adopt the correct politics or the situation will get worse. It is a threat.

Richard believes, I think, that The Muslims are dissimulating when they say or demonstrate opposition to ISIS and other extremist dangers

They might or might not be. What I think is that it is foolish to simply assume that they are not. When I say they, I mean individual muslims. Not "The Muslims" as you put it.

Richard in essence only trusts an ex-Muslim (or jihadi) to tell the truth about what is in his heart and in the Quran. Richard only trusts apostates or infidels or jihadis when they speak of their bedrock beliefs about Islam.

I trust anyone, muslim or otherwise, who doesn't shy away from the truth. There is a Muslim in Melbourne who recently critiqued his religion. I trust him, because he acknowledged the facts about his religion. He didn't try to sweep things that he didn't like under the carpet. There is a lot of that going on in those news articles linked to above. A lot of shifting the focus onto the supposed bigotry and unfairness of non-muslims. There is only one thing that can serve, and that is the likes of ISIS.

If she doesn't see herself in them and finds that she has no more in common with them than, say, a Christian has in common with them, then why is she more responsible for speaking against them than the Christian?

Because it is her faith that they are apparently abusing. What was very noticeable about those news links is how the responsibility is turned away from Muslims and onto Non-Muslims. The issue is ISIS and what it sees as the true Islam, not whether or not non-ISIS muslims feel pressured.

The first link, btw, is full of outright lies. Taqqiya for whoever is willing to sup it up.

You missed her point. It is NOT her faith they are abusing. What they say is their faith does not resemble what she knows to be hers. From her perspective, what they profess is no more similar to her faith than it is to Christianity.

I didn't miss her point. It is her faith they are abusing, because they are doing in the name of her faith. If they are not abusing it, then what they are doing is what Islam teaches them to do. If a bunch of people were terrorising and murdering in the name of Objectivism, Objectivists would certainly need to step up to the plate to put an end to it and make it crystal clear that those peoples actions have nothing to do with Objectivism. If you value something, but don't ever fight for it, then do you really deserve it. Maybe, but if you lose it then you perhaps get what you deserve.

If she doesn't see herself in them and finds that she has no more in common with them than, say, a Christian has in common with them, then why is she more responsible for speaking against them than the Christian?

Because it is her faith that they are apparently abusing. What was very noticeable about those news links is how the responsibility is turned away from Muslims and onto Non-Muslims. The issue is ISIS and what it sees as the true Islam, not whether or not non-ISIS muslims feel pressured.

The first link, btw, is full of outright lies. Taqqiya for whoever is willing to sup it up.