The Egypt Mess and Beyond

[bmacwilliam]

Bob:

Your argument concerning encouraging the "good Nazis" and representing this as Micheal's argument of encouraging the "non-radical Islamo-Nazi jihadist Muslims" is not comparing the same groups.

Nazi's Germans and Germans

Islamist-Jihadist-Sharia Muslims and Muslims

Your argument does not relate the proper comparative groups to form your conclusion. It is a fallacious comparative.

However, I still understand what you are attempting to assert.

And I understand yours, but here's where I don't agree:

The problem happens when you tightly equate Nazism and Islamism. If you insist on tightly entwining the two then you must concede that Nazism's (and therefor Islamism) greatest danger was that it permeated more or less the entire German society - or at least enough to make them a horrible and real threat to the world. Is Islamism a similar threat? If it is Nazi-like then it certainly is a huge threat. If it's not Nazi-like then maybe it's not such a huge threat - but it's Michael's contention that the two are linked!

Linking the two emphasises the extreme danger and very real threat of en-masse adoption (if it isn't there already).

Bob

[william.scherk]

What did you find unconvincing in this video, if anything?

To be honest, this is like asking what you disagreed with in a TV news show you saw a couple of days ago. You have to stop and think and try to remember stuff that you do not normally process.

[ . . . ]

I would have to see the show again to say

All forty-one minutes of the show is available in the post above. The transcript is available via Foxnews.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you insist on tightly entwining the two then you must concede that Nazism's (and therefor Islamism) greatest danger was that it permeated more or less the entire German society - or at least enough to make them a horrible and real threat to the world. Is Islamism a similar threat? If it is Nazi-like then it certainly is a huge threat. If it's not Nazi-like then maybe it's not such a huge threat - but it's Michael's contention that the two are linked!

Bob,

I still don't know what you are talking about.

I will try to go real slow right now so if you misrepresent what I say this time, I will know for sure you are doing it on purpose.

1. I hold that Islamism is a huge threat to the world.

2. I hold that Islamist intellectuals are not just influenced by their fundamentalist understanding of Islam, but also by Nazi ideas and methods they picked up from actual Nazis and Nazi stuff. Many of the earlier Islamist intellectuals even worked for the Nazis before and during WWII. (I keep providing documented proof of this, too.)

Are you still with me?

I am not saying that the Nazi party exists under the guise of an Islamist organization. I am saying the Islamists adopted Nazi ideas and wedded them to fundamentalist ideas about Islam.

3. I hold that most Muslims are not...

Nah...

Let's see if you can digest those first two points correctly first.

I don't want to overload your brain while you are hell-bent on playing games.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Some video proof of USA left involvement with Islamism from The Blaze:

Beck’s Matthews-Mocked Conspiracy Confirmed: Video of US Communists, Socialists & Labor Unions Working With Muslim Brotherhood-Associated Groups

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Tlq4nFMJiQQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Michael

[william.scherk]

Some video proof of USA left involvement with Islamism from The Blaze:

Beck’s Matthews-Mocked Conspiracy Confirmed: Video of US Communists, Socialists & Labor Unions Working With Muslim Brotherhood-Associated Groups

A couple of quick question, Michael -- have you seen or heard or read criticism of Beck's Caliphate program that you judge to be fair or reasonable or justified? Do you think Matthews (whom I don't watch) has any legitimate criticisms of this Beck series, or should we dismiss Matthews entirely as a Beck critic? I ask this because Matthews does not form any part of my views on Beck's Caliphate program. I just don't know if there are any specific criticisms of Beck's theory of the Caliphate that you accept.

I have attempted to draw out some specific criticisms of the Beck program you put up here. Should I consider that there are no specific criticisms of that program you would deem worthy of consideration?

I have several posts backed up the queue; I hesitate posting them because I would rather see credible Beck critiques from someone other than me, from another OL member. Since you appear to have taken up the cause of Beck (as the most credible US analyst) in relation to understanding events in Egypt and Tunisia, I want to wait for a critique of Beck from you, or another Objectivist/Objectivish person.

Edited February 4, 2011 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I don't find the issue of accrediting or discrediting Beck worth the time, if that is where you are going. I like him and I post some of the stuff I find valuable. If others don't like him, that's OK.

As to Chris Matthews, you need to understand the context. Matthews represents about the best the left throws at Beck. A while back, Beck did a series of shows on George Soros called "The Puppet Master." That dude got royally pissed and responded with backstage threats to Fox News and an open one-million-dollar donation to Media Matters for them to set up a "Get Rid Of Glenn Beck" effort (or whatever they called it back then).

If Soros did that openly, I can only imagine what he did in the shadows since he owns gazillions of ad hoc committees, commissions, institutions, think tanks, and journalistic organizations. Chris Matthews is on Soros' side. Every time Beck farts, a bazillioin articles get written bashing it. Mathews is at the top of that particular heap.

I would be far more interested in discussing how "Caliphate" can become a meme in such a short time, and maybe why Beck did it that way. He has discredited several members of Obama's team to the extent that they had to stop being on the team. Acorn and Van Jones come immediately to mind. So he knows what he is doing on that score.

Of course, I am not at all against looking at and discussing facts.

I just don't want to change the "Ayn Rand was wrong/Ayn Rand was right" bickering on OL for "Glenn Beck rocks/Glenn Beck sucks" bickering. I even ignore most of the Rand right/wrong stuff these days.

This ideas excite me. I'm getting a little too jaded for the other stuff. I'm also getting behind in my work.

Michael

[william.scherk]

I don't find the issue of accrediting or discrediting Beck worth the time, if that is where you are going.

That is exactly where I am going. I am in 100% agreement with you. I don't find 'discrediting Beck' worth the time. Moreover, 'bickering' about whether or not he 'sucks' or not is not in anyone's interest. I think we are in broad agreement.

Of course, I am not at all against looking at and discussing facts.

I just don't want to change the "Ayn Rand was wrong/Ayn Rand was right" bickering on OL for "Glenn Beck rocks/Glenn Beck sucks" bickering.

Thanks for the clear general guideline. I agree and understand.

I won't post in this thread again, and I promise to avoid using Glenn Beck in any of my future discussions of Tunisia or Egypt -- lest I be seen as bickering.

Edited February 5, 2011 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

What a hoot!

LOL...

(I thought you wanted serious discussion. I should have known better. )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

If you want to know the truth, I am concerned about the Caliphate meme. It could turn ugly.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's the Glenn Beck show from today.

He has a Muslim guest speaking out against the Muslim Brotherhood and other analyses (many of which I agree with).

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JfhRHwu-X5c?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Bob:

Your argument concerning encouraging the "good Nazis" and representing this as Micheal's argument of encouraging the "non-radical Islamo-Nazi jihadist Muslims" is not comparing the same groups.

Adam, it can be likened this way. Not all nazis supported the rounding up of jews and sending them to the gas chambers. In fact, many would have been disgusted and sickened by them, hence the protective mechanism of evasion. Not all muslims support flying planes into buildings, or other equally heinous acts arising from their ideology, but you can bet that all muslims support Islam, and you can bet that many evade, just like the "good nazis".

[Selene]

Bob:

Your argument concerning encouraging the "good Nazis" and representing this as Micheal's argument of encouraging the "non-radical Islamo-Nazi jihadist Muslims" is not comparing the same groups.

Adam, it can be likened this way. Not all nazis supported the rounding up of jews and sending them to the gas chambers. In fact, many would have been disgusted and sickened by them, hence the protective mechanism of evasion. Not all muslims support flying planes into buildings, or other equally heinous acts arising from their ideology, but you can bet that all muslims support Islam, and you can bet that many evade, just like the "good nazis".

I disagree. I would like to see you represent those arguments in a Venn Diagram.

http://www.teach-nology.com/worksheets/graphic/venn3/

[Richard Wiig]

What do you actually disagree with. That all muslims support Islam, or that Shariah - Islamic law - is part and parcel of Islam? Why is Halal meat so popular with muslims?

Edited February 6, 2011 by Infidel

[Selene]

Bob:

Your argument concerning encouraging the "good Nazis" and representing this as Micheal's argument of encouraging the "non-radical Islamo-Nazi jihadist Muslims" is not comparing the same groups.

Adam, it can be likened this way. Not all nazis supported the rounding up of jews and sending them to the gas chambers. In fact, many would have been disgusted and sickened by them, hence the protective mechanism of evasion. Not all muslims support flying planes into buildings, or other equally heinous acts arising from their ideology, but you can bet that all muslims support Islam, and you can bet that many evade, just like the "good nazis".

Richard:

I must be misunderstanding myself. Your response does not hold, in my opinion. Humans~Europeans~Germans [yes, I am, despite Ms. Xray, including them in the class - human], ~Nazis.

You leave out Germans, some of which were good and bad Nazi's. Many non-Nazi Germans stood bare against the State and were executed:

The White Rose Resistance Movement - Munich

German University Students Protested Against the Third Reich

Mar 26, 2009 James Parsons

Litter memorial to White Rose group - James Parsons In 1943, six members of the White Rose movement at the Munich University were executed after spreading anti-Nazi leaflets during the height of the Third Reich regime.

Visitors to the Munich University might be surprised at what appears to be torn pieces of paper scattered on the forecourt pavers. On closer examination, this ‘litter’ is revealed to be ceramic tiles, scrap-shaped and printed with slogans.

Read more at Suite101: The White Rose Resistance Movement - Munich: German University Students Protested Against the Third Reich http://www.suite101.com/content/the-white-rose-resistance-movement-munich-a105166#ixzz1D8NjfRT6

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

Nazism isn't a race, nor is Islam. It's not about Germans, or about Pakistanis. It's about ideology. Is sharia part and parcel of Islam or not?

[Selene]

Nazism isn't a race, nor is Islam. It's not about Germans, or about Pakistanis. It's about ideology. Is sharia part and parcel of Islam or not?

Not.

[Richard Wiig]

On what basis do you claim that Islamic law is not part of Islam?

Edited February 6, 2011 by Infidel

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You can have Islam without sharia. You can't have sharia without Islam. This is, if sharia is defined as the legal system of a country.

If--as is practiced in many Muslim countries--you define sharia conceptually as rules from the Qyr'an you follow at home (something like the Christian Ten Commandments), you will find it present in all of Islam. This version stays with the "revealed" literature only and has nothing to do with government.

The one that is objectionable to the West is the same that Islamists want to impose--sharia as the government.

Same word. Different meanings. And even still, you will not find agreement among Muslims over what it is, especially the government version. For example, when Mullah Mohammed Omar of the Taliban was confronted by Sunni scholars who said blowing up the Buddha statues was not part of sharia, he responded with "Sharia in Afghanistan is what I say it is."

(I got that from Scott Atran, so that is probably the essence only, i.e., not an exact quote.)

Michael

[Selene]

One what basis do you claim that Islamic law is not part of Islam?

Richard:

"In the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar, Pilate's philosophical question is compounded upon. He questions Jesus' conviction by asking him, 'What is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths; are mine the same as yours?'"

John 18:38 "Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."

Is your Sharia the same as my Sharia?***

You asked, "Is sharia part and parcel of Islam or not?"

Is Canon Law "part and parcel" of Catholicism, Eastern Catholic, Anglican Communion and Eastern and Oriental Churches?

Muslim believe Sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails. Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well."

I dunno dude...so wadda ya tink?

Relevant section ends at 1:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-lp0E0mkIE

***Sung to the song of "My Sharia More"

Al lah Al lah Al lah

My Sharia Law

Just a stone's throw away

My Sharia law

Distant as the Hadj Today

My Sharia Law

Little Twelver I adore

Your the only girl to lose my head for

How I wish you were divine

In a cafe or sometimes on a crowded street

I've been near you but you never noticed me

My Sharia Law

Won't you tell me how you could ignore

that behind that little smile I wore

was a bomb that tore you to your core

Al lah Al lah Al lah

Maybe someday

You'll see my face among the crowd

Maybe someday

I'll share your little distant cloud

My Sharia Law

Little Twelver I adore

better than the virgins who bore

How I wish that you were mine

Al lah Al lah Al lah

Al lah Al lah Al lah

[Richard Wiig]

You can have Islam without sharia. You can't have sharia without Islam. This is, if sharia is defined as the legal system of a country.

Shariah is Allah's law. Halal and Haram, something that all muslims take seriously, is part of Shariah. Given that Shariah is the law of Allah, how exactly can you have Islam without Shariah? It's like saying that you can have Islam with Halal and Haram.

[Richard Wiig]

One what basis do you claim that Islamic law is not part of Islam?

Richard:

Is your Sharia the same as my Sharia?***

You asked, "Is sharia part and parcel of Islam or not?"

Is Canon Law "part and parcel" of Catholicism, Eastern Catholic, Anglican Communion and Eastern and Oriental Churches?

Muslim believe Sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails. Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well."

I dunno dude...so wadda ya tink?

What I think is that you've just shown me that Shariah IS part and parcel of Islam. That there are various disagreements as to which parts of Shariah should be implemented and which shouldn't means little. The fact is, every mainstream school of Islamic jurisprudence agrees on the essentials of Shariah, and their differences are merely over minor matters. You haven't shown that Sharia is not part of Islam at all. It clearly is part of Islam.

[Selene]

One what basis do you claim that Islamic law is not part of Islam?

Richard:

Is your Sharia the same as my Sharia?***

You asked, "Is sharia part and parcel of Islam or not?"

Is Canon Law "part and parcel" of Catholicism, Eastern Catholic, Anglican Communion and Eastern and Oriental Churches?

Muslim believe Sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails. Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well."

I dunno dude...so wadda ya tink?

What I think is that you've just shown me that Shariah IS part and parcel of Islam. That there are various disagreements as to which parts of Shariah should be implemented and which shouldn't means little. The fact is, every mainstream school of Islamic jurisprudence agrees on the essentials of Shariah, and their differences are merely over minor matters. You haven't shown that Sharia is not part of Islam at all. It clearly is part of Islam.

Richard:

OK. We will let each person judge.

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

For example, when Mullah Mohammed Omar of the Taliban was confronted by Sunni scholars who said blowing up the Buddha statues was not part of sharia, he responded with "Sharia in Afghanistan is what I say it is."

That doesn't mean much. It may simply be that he didn't have the words right there and then. The case for destroying the remnants of Jahilliya is well grounded in Islamic teachings, regardless of whether or not the sanction to do so is codified in Shariah. That isn't a case of "it's what I say it is". Regardless of that, though, Mullah Mohammed Omar is a product of Islamic theology, as are all those evil religious scum.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Infidel

[Richard Wiig]

Of course we'll let people judge, but your post seems like a bit of a cop out to me, Adam.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When a person is prejudiced, he sure doesn't like facts that contradict his oversimplifications.

The reader is encouraged to look up all this stuff. If you want to know what sharia is, look it up. Google it. We live in an age where this is incredibly easy. Once you see all the differing views and definitions and implementations from all sorts of Muslims and Islamic cultures, the oversimplification becomes clear.

Then ask yourself, why would someone try to oversimplify this in public and leave out all the other stuff? Isn't it more rational to identify the problem (the government version of sharia), combat that, and let people do in their homes what they want to do?

That's supposed to be one of the social pillars of freedom, not to mention libertarianism and Objectivism.

When you seek information, the best way to treat prejudiced people is beautifully illustrated with a Middle Eastern image:

The dogs bark, but the caravan passes.

Michael