Richard Wiig

Not may be, but actually are. The people who do not support it, or who in fact actively resist it, are not a concern, just as anyone who leaves others alone and goes about their daily business by the philosophy of live and let live, is not a concern, whether they wear a hijab or sport ten foot long dreadlocks, or like to dress in orange robes and stand on street corners speaking gibberish. In regard to those who are a concern, the Islamic supremacists, they are pushing an agenda that is ideologically driven. In order to defend against that agenda, it is essential to understand the ideology that drives their agenda. Who said that doesn't require intelligence or hard work? Not me, so I don't know why you even raise it. Tony says they are not the enemy, but you are nit-picking. I didn't introduce specifics, and there was no call to. What's the point intorducing specifics to someone who claims there isn't even an enemy. It would be a meaningless waste of time. First of all it needs to be established that there is an enemy, then specifics can be examined. Sure, it's hard work, and also a waste of time on someone who'll simply dismiss it as bias, or paranoid delusions, or bigotry, or whatever. I was having a conversation with Tony, not writing an op-ed, or thesis, or expose. That reaction reflects your values, so why would you want to extirpate it? An emotional reaction does not make you prejudiced. I have an emotional reaction towards the burqa, but that doesn't make me prejudiced. I am not bigoted, I am not racist, and I am not perfect. It's a valid question that I ask. How can a purported freedom lover make excuses for evil or bury their head in the sand? They can't. It may well be the other way around, that Tony is losing me. I haven't lost anything, but I have learned that Tony, if he has this reaction, is pretty thin-skinned. If this wasn't an objectivist website I wouldn't be surprised to find a lack of support for anti-jihadism, but it is an Objectivist website.

It really puzzles me as to how you reach that conclusion about my view. Where I have I ever said that every single muslim is a threat to the West? If that's what you conclude from what I say, then you are not comprehending what I am saying. The issue is particular aspects of Islam, specifically the jihad and supremacist doctrines. Those doctrines exist in reality, they are adopted and taken to heart by certain people, in reality, and they are a problem for us in reality. 9/11 and other similar acts of war that are the consequences of those doctrines took place in reality. Real people died, and are dying. The only way to know the people who follow the doctrines, the people who you say are not your enemy, is to study the ideology that they follow. If you haven't studied your enemy then you are rendered incapable of effectively acting. To say that my being opposed to Islamic supremacism, and all the violence and tyranny that goes with it, is a fearful prejudice is an insult. Are you a freedom lover or not? You should be appalled and outraged by those things and be equally against them alongside every other anti-jihadist. I haven't side-stepped anything. Richard

we should ignore their wordy rhetoric and the words of their scriptures When the words of their scriptures are insights to their actions, why on earth would you want to ignore them? To defeat your enemy you must know your enemy. I think that objectively, we cannot rush to judgement about an entire race; Islam is not a race. One basic fact that an intelligent person should easily integrate.

And on a side note, people like Al-Qaradawi (and possibly Rauf, since he admires this creep so much), have it backwards. Hitler was not an instrument of Allah. Al-Qaradawi and people who follow him are instruments of Hitler, dragging Islam through the muck of Nazism, even to the point of openly preaching murder. Islam is pure and loving, but it's been corrupted by Nazism. That damn Hitler!

I never said it does mean that. I was merely pointing out that Mubarak was a pussycat. The fact is, totalitarian regimes have always been vulnerable, that's why they need the gun. Vulnerability does not mean instant change of a toxic government--except maybe to you and others who think like that.

That all depends on what is going around in the texts, surely. It certainly makes crowd control a hell of a lot harder though.

Like the Iranian regime whose dissenters Obama supported. the good news for us is that they will have the same vulnerability if they ever get their hands on power.

I wouldn't say that either. The likes of Hezbollah are state-sponsored, covertly, but they're also funded by your average muslim paying Zakat to Islamic charities. However those type of groups are only one form of Jihad. There are many forms of Jihad practiced by a vast array of individuals, many of which are quite effective.

No, it's not the same God at all.

Tony, I have not over-reacted.

No they're not.

I don't know if it does or doesn't, all I know is that it exists and that it is considered authentic. In what way does it contradict the Qur'an exactly? It wasn't the only thing that Muhammad said about women was denigratory, so given that context I think it makes little difference. So devoutness is not publicly visible? I don't think so. You can see it on the foreheads of hardcore fanatics, that's without seeing any actions whatsoever. That's one thing that Muhammad said, but it would be folly to assume that that's the totality of it.

So why is hell populated mainly by women if it isn't that women are somehow more evil than men? Is it because they hadn't learned the virtues of Islam yet? Islam does shape the minds of men and thus creates a culture. Are you saying that this man has not been shaped by Islam, even though he is a devoutly Islamic, or are you saying that only the positive aspects of this man are shaped by Islam, whereas all the negatives are shaped by something else? Yes, I fully acknowledged that other creeds produce honor killing, to varying degrees, but we are not talking about a man who has been shaped by these other creeds. We are talking about a man who is culturally Islamic. Your idea that religion does not shape culture, is an evasion. Religion, including the Islamic religion, certainly does shape culture.

The only lack of critical thinking I see is yours. You seriously seem to think that anti-jihadists haven't researched the subject enough to form their own conclusions, and you seem incapable of distinguishing between someone making judgements of a creed and of the followers of that creed. When someone says that Socialism is evil, at least among those who know that it is, such as Libertarians and Objectivists, it isn't controversial. The majority know that Socialism is an evil creed. No one makes charges of bigotry against Socialists, or a lack of critical thinking, or tries to disintegrate the focus by pointing out that those people over there do it to. No one does, but Islam gets a free pass. You are a useful Jihadist tool.

Muhammad states that he's glimpsed Hell, and nearly all of its occupants are woman. Other cultures inculcate the same attitudes to varying degrees, such as Hinduism, Christianity to a degree, and others, no one is disputing that, but this man is primarily Islamic, not christian, or Hindu, or Hare Krishna, or anything like that. He's a muslim, who's devout enough to devote his life to running a tv station dedicated to spreading Islam. The focus here is on him and his religion, and it is entirely legitimate to do so. Cultures are shaped by ideas. They may be Christian ideas, or Islamic ideas, or more primitive bow down to the Gods ideas, that are so primitive it amounts to "the Gods are unhappy, let's toss them a sacrifice". We are talking about a man shaped largely by Islamic culture. Yes, Muhammad did not forbid divorce, but he did put forward a whole lot of rules, and many misogynistic ideas. As I said, a religion steeped in misogyny is bound to rub off. Stop not facing up to the reality of your religion.

Just keep an eye on the anti-jihad sites and you will see them popping up from time to time.

Tribalism and misogyny arise from ideas about life. Islam is a system of ideas about life, that when imbibed inculcates certain attitudes and outlooks, one of which is misogyny. You cannot steep yourself in a religion that tells you that women are destined for hell by virtue of being women, along with a whole host of other misogynistic ideas without some of it rubbing off on you, and the wider culture around you.

No, you haven't struck a nerve. You are irritating in your cannards and biases and your constant mischaracterisations, but you haven't struck a nerve. Here's an op-ed that has it right, and with zero bigotry. But of course, all you'll see is bigotry: http://www.solopassion.com/node/8310

If it was five minutes before I could have read it, even two, so why ten hours makes a difference I don't know. It wasn't silly for you to raise it, but it's silly for me to comment on it. That's your logic, not mine. The real important thing here is Qadri.

This is because he believes people are essentially good. (Including Muslims.) This interests me. Which is prejudiced, to believe that people are essentially good, or that people are essentially bad? I'm not going to ask if you are on board with that because I have seen in your posts that you are committed to prejudice. You tend to belittle facts that do not support your prejudice and exaggerate those that support it. I'd like you to lay your cards on the table please, Michael. What exactly is my prejudice? Strip it down and lay it bare so that it's made explicit. Secondly, provide an example of me belittling a fact while exaggerating another.

Ten hours before or not is irrelevant.

Said as if I never listen to what else Glenn Beck says. I've been listening to Glenn Beck for years, on all kinds of subjects. I do listen to lots of things that Glenn Beck says. You are constantly coming up with cannards and jumping to unwarranted conclusions. That's because you engage your biases rather than really taking your time to get to know. I don't think that is going to change.

The term honour killing is detestable since it imports the idea of honour to an act which is the grotesque nadir of dishonour. It should be femicide, or filicide, or the most contemptible cide anyone could think of. I am seeing Aqsa Parvez as I write, bright, brave, murdered at 14 by those who should have cherished her the most. Such killings are entirely tribal and cultural and occur among Palestinian Christians and Hindus in equal proportion to Muslims. Call it for what it is. It is their code of honour that is detestable, and renaming it simply distracts from the fact that it is their code. That doesn't help to stop it, that helps to cover the cause up and ensure that there are more victims. You are bringing Christians and Hindus into it in order to mitigate, which I detest, but so far as Christianity and Hinduism goes, if it leads to the same kind of thing - and I know that Hinduism does it, but I'm not so sure about Christianity - they (those codes) should be equally denounced and ostracized. They way to put an end to this shit, is to have zero tolerance of that shit, not mitigating and protecting it by announcing that others do it too.

Yes, but surely you don't believe them. I am only saying what the claim to be the case. Ba'al Chatzaf I know, but as we both know, there is no Allah, so there is only the will of Muhammad. Perhaps I am being pedantic, but I think the distinction matters. There seems to be no disagreement that the essence of Islam is submission - although Michael fears something, so he had to shift the focus by claiming that everyone submits in one way or another. Disintegration is obviously his goal. Anyway, on the subject of the essence of things, how would you sum up the essence of Objectivism? What is it in a nutshell?

Richard, I have no doubt you do. What I find bizarre, Michael, is that when Glenn Beck presents these things, you consider them to be "dealing with intellectual issues for real instead of silly oversimplifications." even though they are exactly the same things that Robert Spencer says, but when Mr Spencer, and others, say them, they become oversimplifications. There's a severe inconsistency there.