Boy did this one backfire!

[anthony]

Richard,

I do not claim to have any special insight into the Islamic world

or the Jihadist splinter groups specifically. Evidenced by WSS's far better knowledge about Egypt, or others' here about Shariah, etc, I've realised.

But I have been following the Middle East since my teens, and have experienced a growth in my awareness about Islam.

This is the mindset I'm in presently:

Do not take it all too seriously. Do not over-react.

An average Muslim has had a different life to you or I.

We inhabit a place of milder authoritarian figures and ideology.

Conformity was not thrust very rigidly on us. Our general sense of morality in the West has been "Say what you mean, mean what you say, do what you say."

And that's before anyone becomes an atheist or Objectivist...

The average Muslim is caught in a tricky place - between wanting a peaceful, prosperous existence, fitting in with his countrymen for pragmaticism and conformity, and the Qur'anic Law.

(Remember, too, that the majority of this law is very mild). Many times there is no contradiction between these, but when they are faced with perceived enemies, they speak as one, and make a lot of noise; literally, lip-service.

Despite their private doubts.

Individualism is not a virtue in Islam, although self-responsibility is advocated.

Emphatically, rhetoric is a central part of a Muslim's life. They are a poetic people by and large, and the fantasy created by words is probably a substitute for the usually harsh reality they exist in. Israel, for instance, understands this; on words alone, she would have been demolished hundreds of times already.

(I heard the impassioned calls to arms on Arab radio stations back in the 60's - they continue every single day.)

Personally, I think fundamental Islam has reached and passed its high-water mark. I'm picking up a growing sense of unease among Muslims - believe it or not, a sort of *embarrasment* about its 'excesses'. Justice and fairness, I've observed is important to them. Their words, however, will continue as incendiary as ever.

Am I advocating applying different a morality? double standards? I wonder, but I don't think so. Also, I'm not saying to close our eyes and hope it all goes away. Or, that the worst is over.

I think that we,( broadly westerners), will know our true enemies by his actions - not his speech. After applying self-restraint, after all other channels have been exhausted, that is the time for micro-military action: selectively, coolly, and conclusively.

With firm constitutional governance and individual rights in our countries, how possibly can one more generally peaceful religion hurt us, no matter what its holy book decrees?

Tony

Edited February 11, 2011 by whYNOT

[Libertarian Muslim]

Do Turkish families commit honor killing?

You say, no, but the Organization of Turkish Culture says . .

Turkish boys commit 'honour' crimes

Honor Killings And Violence Against Women In Turkey

For the great majority of examples it occurs within the Kurdish community who have not abandoned their tribal lifestyles.. The Turkish government has gone to great lengths to stop this, punishing entire families that are guilty of taking part and running programs.. If, however you look at the rest of Turkey you'll find that such events are very rare.

[Brant Gaede]

Do Turkish families commit honor killing?

You say, no, but the Organization of Turkish Culture says . .

Turkish boys commit 'honour' crimes

Honor Killings And Violence Against Women In Turkey

For the great majority of examples it occurs within the Kurdish community who have not abandoned their tribal lifestyles.. The Turkish government has gone to great lengths to stop this, punishing entire families that are guilty of taking part and running programs.. If, however you look at the rest of Turkey you'll find that such events are very rare.

Not rare enough.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

For those who want to defeat "honor" killings the best way is through blatant ridicule,not sober discussions. This crap is tribal and machismo and patriarchal. Consider that even in a remote village the inhabitants got the radio show.

If a 35 yo man goes to the big city and a whore house and comes home to be greeted by his 14 yo daughter screaming the family honor had been sullied, BAM! BAM! BAM!--see what I mean for a little story script? The same thing goes for making cartoons of the Prophet for other reasons.

--Brant

[sbeaulieu]

...no matter what its holy book decrees?

Tony

Tony,

I really like your observation.

~ Shane

[Selene]

...no matter what its holy book decrees?

Tony

Tony,

I really like your observation.

~ Shane

Yes. I think Tony is spot on. Thanks for posting this. I missed Tony's original post.

"Despite their private doubts.

Individualism is not a virtue in Islam, although self-responsibility is advocated."

Very astute observation. It comports with my network of Muslims and the thoughts they have shared with me.

I will tell you one aspect of America that my male Muslim clients and most females have real issues with and that is the Domestic Relations Courts and the Family Courts.

Great post Tony.

Adam

[caroljane]

Adam, I'm interested in your remark about Muslims/family courts. Could you expand on it?

Tony, you really know what you are talking about. Deeply insightful post.

[Selene]

Carol:

Custody of children should not be an issue that the courts should decide. For example, my Palestinian and Egyptian clients think that the tender years doctrine should apply.

Mother should be the primary custodial actor until the age of ten (10) or twelve (12), I would have to check the exact ages. At that point, the primary custodial actor should be the father.

In Egypt, the custody actually switches at those ages.

In an equitable distribution state like NY, equitable does not mean equal, which is a concept that does not resonate at all with Muslims. Additionally, NY is a grounds state, with one of seven grounds legally required for a divorce by statute.

However, the practicality is that NY Domestic Relations law acts as a no-fault state. This completely grates on their respect for the law as written.

These examples just scratch the surface.

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

Tony, I have not over-reacted.

[Richard Wiig]

Well, you know of a better God?

The same Big Guy who gave us the Talmud, which Mohammed borrowed and called Shariah Law.

Same ol' mountain, same ol' God.

There goes your believer, Ba'al.

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

[william.scherk]

For example, my Palestinian and Egyptian clients think that the tender years doctrine should apply.

Mother should be the primary custodial actor until the age of ten (10) or twelve (12), I would have to check the exact ages. At that point, the primary custodial actor should be the father.

In Egypt, the custody actually switches at those ages.

Check against the notes on family law and custody at International-divorce.com, Adam.

See also the changes made in 2005. The child does not move to the physical custody of the father without court adjudication.

6. Sharia law as it is applied in Egypt primarily favors the mother. Mothers are most commonly considered to be the appropriate custodians of children up to age 15. Normally, if custody disputes arise between parents, Egyptian courts uphold presumptive custody.

7. If the mother loses her presumptive custody the courts recognize an order of preference of alternate adult custodians with priority given to the mother’s family in the following order: maternal grandmother or great-grandmother; paternal grandmother or great-grandmother; maternal aunt; paternal aunt; maternal niece; paternal niece. Only if these relatives do not exist, will the right of custody shift to a male.

[BaalChatzaf]

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

But from the same family.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

William:

Thanks. The client's cases that I mentioned were prior to 2005.

"See also the changes made in 2005. The child does not move to the physical custody of the father without court adjudication."

Interesting. I wonder what brought about that change.

Adam

[anthony]

...no matter what its holy book decrees?

Tony

Tony,

I really like your observation.

~ Shane

Thanks Shane. Much appreciated Carol, and Adam.

I must admit that I'm drawing my conclusions from a smallish sample of Muslims - and my reading - and may be in danger of over-extrapolating, but I'm still attempting to finalise my thoughts on this.

Trying to come at a moral, Objectivist method in assessing Islam as a whole is not easy.( Huh.)

How does one treat an individual as individual, when he or she identifies largely with their collective? When nearly every one of them refuses to openly disagree with their people. This is crucial I believe, in understanding why O'ists become so virulent about Islam: they just don't get it, and reasonably so.

As comparison, we look at Jews,specifically, and Christians too, and see individuals who are hardly ever in accord - even when their self-interest and survival depends on it! (And honestly I must mention Objectivists, here too.)

Perhaps it is simply maturity - that those 'tribes' can show fierce dissent amongst each other, but have no doubts about their ultimate unity. As we can see, individualism, at times rugged individualism, is commonly practised in the older religions, (and makes for some fascinating mixed premises.)

Anyhow, it is obvious that free speech and independence of mind are not encouraged within Islam, for reasons political, cultural, and religious. (Could there be the possibility that the loathing commonly shown for the West conceals deep envy of perceived freedom and individualism that Muslims cannot attain?)

Constraints, conformism, and subjugation to their society, force them into a corner that makes them malleable and easily controlled by despots. Humanly, one must pity this, although rationally it cannot be justified.

I think that objectively, we cannot rush to judgement about an entire race; we should ignore their wordy rhetoric and the words of their scriptures - but condemn and swiftly punish evil acts. The extremists will eventually be marginalized and shamed, I feel, while those seeking a new life in the West will gradually be assimilated, and won over.

Justice prescribes that Objectivists should continue applying individualism to each person and situation - and cross each river when we come to it.

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

I think it is not a matter of trying to remove a culture. The only way to do that is by genocide.

The idea is to encourage new ideas like the Western version of individual rights within that culture. Things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.

Then let the individuals carry it from there.

If there's one thing you can count on human beings to do, that is to disagree with each other if they live in freedom or hold freedom as a value.

That disagreement will do more to defang the Islamists than any attempt at genocide would ever do. (Not that I think genocide is anything but evil.)

Michael

[anthony]

Tony,

I think it is not a matter of trying to remove a culture. The only way to do that is by genocide.

The idea is to encourage new ideas like the Western version of individual rights within that culture. Things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.

Then let the individuals carry it from there.

If there's one thing you can count on human beings to do, that is to disagree with each other if they live in freedom or hold freedom as a value.

That disagreement will do more to defang the Islamists than any attempt at genocide would ever do. (Not that I think genocide is anything but evil.)

Michael

Michael,

I am completely bamboozled!

Where did I give any impression I was trying to remove a culture?

Given time, and understanding, the culture will move of its own accord towards individualism and personal liberty, I believe. Which is my implication - if we grant them respect as responsible individuals, they will react as such.

ie, the West will win them over - without 'converting' them from Islam, of course.

I am opposed to force of any kind.

(And very disappointed that I was not clear enough.)

Tony

[Richard Wiig]

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.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Infidel

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Given time, and understanding, the culture will move of its own accord towards individualism and personal liberty, I believe. Which is my implication - if we grant them respect as responsible individuals, they will react as such.

ie, the West will win them over - without 'converting' them from Islam, of course.

Tony,

We are on the same page here.

Frankly, if anyone wants to continue being Muslim while adopting a few basic tenets like liberty and individual rights in the Western sense, I say may he/she live long, be prosperous and be happy.

I don't believe, like some do, that these basic tenets are impossible to learn and adopt while still practicing Islam as a religion.

The only reason I mentioned genocide as the only viable means of eradicating a culture was for the benefit of the reader. And genocide actually is the only way to eradicate a culture. There is no other. Those who think Islam is irrevocably incompatible with freedom have only genocide as a solution. If stamping out Islam is what they are preaching, then let's be clear that the only way to stamp out Islam is to stamp out the Muslims who practice it. That is reality. If someone wants to preach this, let the reader mull this over. What is the reality of what they are preaching, not just what is their rhetoric?

Of course, anything is possible from an armchair, but that doesn't make it real. And I'm not afraid of armchairs. I'm only afraid of nutcases who act and power mongers who get power.

I didn't mean to insinuate that you were proposing genocide. I used your post as a springboard to highlight this alternative. So, sorry about the insinuation--especially if any reader got that message. It wasn't intended.

Michael

[anthony]

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.

Richard,

"They" are your enemy, not mine.

If you insist upon seeing every single Muslim as a threat to the West, or Islam as an over-riding ideology that will be blindly followed by the masses into Jihad, you are living in a different reality to me.

I repeat, let's act when action is essential, otherwise your fearful prejudice could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

About the "race" thing, yes I was wrong, but you have neatly side-stepped the rest of the sentence. (Rushing to judgement about an entire body of people?)

Tony

{edit} Just caught your reply, Michael. No problem. On principle and intent, I think we have often been on the same page.

T.

Edited February 17, 2011 by whYNOT

[Richard Wiig]

Richard,

"They" are your enemy, not mine.

If you insist upon seeing every single Muslim as a threat to the West,

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.

or Islam as an over-riding ideology that will be blindly followed by the masses into Jihad, you are living in a different reality to me

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.

I repeat, let's act when action is essential,

If you haven't studied your enemy then you are rendered incapable of effectively acting.

otherwise your fearful prejudice could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

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.

About the "race" thing, yes I was wrong, but you have neatly side-stepped the rest of the sentence. (Rushing to judgement about an entire body of people?)

Tony

I haven't side-stepped anything.

Richard

[william.scherk]

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.

This is more or less right. A good common starting place.

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.

This is wrong, in that the only way to know 'the people' who may be part of violent jihad is to use every means of intelligence to make a correct identification. It is hard work.

Studying 'the ideology' of 'the people who you say are not your enemy' misses out essential steps in research. Marking off a vague 'the people who [you-Tony/somebody says] are not the enemy' is not good enough. A much better way is to mark off 'certain people' and judge against 'jihad and supremacist doctrines.' Judge fairly, prudently, thoughtfully, and without prejudice. That is hard work.

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.

I myself struggle with a certain reflex racism and prejudice when I read of or especially see certain Muslims. I react with a reflexive 'ugh' when I see chador, hijab, niqab. I feel prejudice rising when I see the fez, the various clerical turbans and outfits (especially Iranian mullah outfits). I feel a real revulsion when I see Nasrullah, when I saw Sheik Yassein. I feel that same impulse to loathe when I see Moqtada Sadr in his turban and outfit. It's like I hate the turban, the specialness it symbolizes, the rich particular robes that are a mark of distinction. I really can't extirpate that initial reaction.

Here at home I am much more comfortable with turbans. I am prejudiced for Sikhs, for example. I trust Sikhs that wear the usual turban. I don't know why, but I am inclined to like any Sikh wearing the turban, even the old men in the park. I always choose a Sikh taxi driver. I like seeing ladies in the saris. I feel a kneejerk revulsion however with the special turbans that mark off the Sikh hierarchs/devotees. When I see the western 'caucasian' proto-Sikhs with their white robes and their distinctive turbans, I feel that prejudice. When I see the special chinbeards and white caps of a Muslim devotee, I kneejerk. Yet, I feel positive towards the outer Pakistani-style tunic/trouser outfit, and the shalwar kameez.

When I see Muslim ladies/girls on the streets in the simple underchin headscarf (not the hot Iranian-Vancouver style) hijab, again I feel something atavistic, I feel sorry for them. I sometimes unbidden hear an inner voice saying, "why do you dress like a nun, you stupid bitch?" When I see ladies going about their business in the head to toe coverings and drab Canucki-standard hijab headwear, I actually feel pity tinged with a bit of contempt, and the younger they are, the more contempt I feel initially. I can't really shake that off.

I am prejudiced and sometimes racist in my mind. I don't express it (save here now, openly).

Richard, this is just to show that I suspect you are a human being with a certain amount of prejudice and racism within you. If you deny this, I will consider you dishonest -- or a perfect being.

Are you a freedom lover or not?

Sigh. That is how you lose your audience, brother. Surely you know that giving this kind of either/or choice, hinged on the person accepting your terms, is how to lose that person's sense that you are reasonable. It isn't that you lose the argument, it's that the other person's prejudice against you is confirmed. I really really really wish you could understand why that kind of tactic doesn't work.

You should be appalled and outraged by those things and be equally against them alongside every other anti-jihadist.

Sigh. This is how you lose, Richard. If you want allies or even fellow-travelers, or even simply someone to give you a hearing, this kind of comment is a perfect way to add hostility to the prejudice.

Consider yourself a salesman for 'anti-jihad,' going door to door. When you offer your wares/tracts, and then say 'are you for freedom or not?! If you do not buy now you are bad person!' then the householder does what we all tend to do, and shuts the door in your face. No sale.

It's odd that you haven't ever figured this shit out. As a salesman, you are almost completely self-thwarting.

Edited February 18, 2011 by william.scherk

[anthony]

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.

This is wrong, in that the only way to know 'the people' who may be part of violent jihad is to use every means of intelligence to make a correct identification. It is hard work.

Studying 'the ideology' of 'the people who you say are not your enemy' misses out essential steps in research. Marking off a vague 'the people who [you-Tony/somebody says] are not the enemy' is not good enough. A much better way is to mark off 'certain people' and judge against 'jihad and supremacist doctrines.' Judge fairly, prudently, thoughtfully, and without prejudice. That is hard work.

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.

Richard,

You cannot avoid the collectivist fallacy you are making.

But let's say you are correct, and that the majority of Muslims are preparing to 'get us'.

This a large point of my disagreement with you, but let's pretend.

What would we do about it?

It would save a lot of 'work' in the identification (that MSK, WSS have been rightly insisting upon). Now it is easier: we would know that nearly every Muslim male - and some females - are automatically the Enemy. From a barber in Tripoli, to my Pakistani lawyer neighbour right here, they must be opposed. How? Spying and eavesdropping on them to catch them fomenting dastardly plans;getting access to their bank details to see who they're financing; slipping anti-Islam pamphlets under their door?

It boggles the brain.

Where this is headed is that I am going to go mad if I even begin thinking I can do something to "oppose" them. Apart from dialogue. Apart from better ideas.

If the irrational is the "impossible and the insane", then attemping the impossible will drive one insane.

So far I've only read your moral objections to Islam - on the basis that all religion is irrational, with some aspects of Islam being more highly so, I agree - but I haven't seen any practical answers. I don't have to remind you that there is no dichotomy between the pracical and the moral. I ask again, what do you suggest doing about it?

Those Muslims I am in contact - and quite friendly - with, listen approvingly when I speak about individual freedom - my right to non-faith, and theirs' to thump their heads on the floor.(They have a sense of humour!) Expectedly, they are not so agreeable when it comes to the issue of Israel, or the 'decadence' of western nations, but they do understand the reality, I think.

Importantly, I know they are not going to DO anything about it.

The "enemy" is out there for real, certainly. They are the twisted, evil shits who should be eliminated. With them, respectful and rational communication would definitely be immoral - these must be carefully and intellectually separated from any noisy but ineffectual followers. I won't stop insisting that they are a tiny minority. For them we should keep our powder dry.

Tony

[Richard Wiig]

This is wrong, in that the only way to know 'the people' who may be part of violent jihad is to use every means of intelligence to make a correct identification. It is hard work.

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.

Studying 'the ideology' of 'the people who you say are not your enemy' misses out essential steps in research. Marking off a vague 'the people who [you-Tony/somebody says] are not the enemy' is not good enough.

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.

A much better way is to mark off 'certain people' and judge against 'jihad and supremacist doctrines.' Judge fairly, prudently, thoughtfully, and without prejudice. That is hard work.

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.

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.

I really can't extirpate that initial reaction.

That reaction reflects your values, so why would you want to extirpate it?

I am prejudiced and sometimes racist in my mind. I don't express it (save here now, openly).

An emotional reaction does not make you prejudiced. I have an emotional reaction towards the burqa, but that doesn't make me prejudiced.

Richard, this is just to show that I suspect you are a human being with a certain amount of prejudice and racism within you. If you deny this, I will consider you dishonest -- or a perfect being.

I am not bigoted, I am not racist, and I am not perfect.

Are you a freedom lover or not?

Sigh. That is how you lose your audience, brother.

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.

You should be appalled and outraged by those things and be equally against them alongside every other anti-jihadist.

Sigh. This is how you lose, Richard. If you want allies or even fellow-travelers, or even simply someone to give you a hearing, this kind of comment is a perfect way to add hostility to the prejudice.

I haven't lost anything, but I have learned that Tony, if he has this reaction, is pretty thin-skinned.

As a salesman, you are almost completely self-thwarting.

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.

[Richard Wiig]

Richard,

You cannot avoid the collectivist fallacy you are making.

But let's say you are correct, and that the majority of Muslims are preparing to 'get us'.

You're the one who's making a collectivist fallacy. Again, where have I said that the majority of muslims are out to get us? Please point it out? Are you capable of not thinking in collectivist frameworks and then imposing it upon me? I hope so.

[william.scherk]

I am prejudiced and sometimes racist in my mind. I don't express it (save here now, openly).

Richard, this is just to show that I suspect you are a human being with a certain amount of prejudice and racism within you. If you deny this, I will consider you dishonest -- or a perfect being.

I am not bigoted, I am not racist, and I am not perfect.

Dude, you cannot admit to a certain amount of prejudice and racism within yourself. I consider that to be dishonest and sadly self-thwarting.

You are, as you style yourself, an 'anti-Jihadist.' As an Anti-Jinadist, as a proponent of Antijihadianism, you are a failure here. You defeat yourself, and you are too stupid to understand why. Go away, please. Maybe your cult can outfit and send another Antijihadian salesman/huckster our way, one who is more gifted at persuasion.

Edited February 18, 2011 by william.scherk