Osama bin Laden Killed

[Robert Campbell]

Recently here in SW Florida, our church was asked to join one of these councils and we were surprised to find that there were things to work on that we could agree to even with some of the Fundamentalist brothers--and we knock heads with them constantly, what with being GBLT welcoming, evolutionist, having a pagan contention, and so forth. Some progress with certain Muslim contingents as well, although we don't have much opportunity for that locally as there just aren't that many around.

Rich,

Our local UU (also gay-friendly, Wiccan-friendly, and other scary things) has worked productively with most of the Christian churches in the area for many years. There are a couple of Fundy congregations too hard-shell to join the council, but most of the conservative churches are active in it. They can all find charitable projects to cooperate on.

The only mosque in the area is a little storefront that caters to graduate students from the Middle East. Cooperation has been more fitful, though our UU was visited on a couple of occasions by a Turkish imam.

There is a tendency within the UU to, um, sanitize the world religions, though the sanitizing is equal-opportunity.

Robert Campbell

[william.scherk]

As for LM's understanding of atheism/agnosticism, I honestly think it is nil. He accused Xray of being a fanatical atheist (when she has honestly announced to be agnostic). I can only imagine what he thinks of my actual atheism.

I don't get the impression that LM has the slightest idea why anyone would ever become an atheist.

It is likely not an interest of his . . . to understand a non-believer point of view. That is really too bad, because if he had a bit more knowledge or understanding of non-believers, he might understand his audience here at OL. I suspect we are in the >80 non-believer range. And, of course, we are probably fairly diverse in our non-belief and our particular epistemic stance toward a 'spirit world.'

But maybe that is why a few of us here tend to be fairly puzzled as to how LM forms his opinions and conclusions. I wish he had more time or inclination to discuss these kinds of things.

Edited May 15, 2011 by william.scherk

[Robert Campbell]

I found the reaction to Osama's death

http://www.slate.com/id/2294002

from a highly placed member of the Muslim Brotherhood rather enlightening.

L.W.: What did you think of the killing of Osama bin Laden?

E.E.: For us, Osama Bin Laden never represented Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion. Violent groups are a minority among Islamic groups. ... Even though it was war, it didn't give America the right to kill a person while the forces could capture him.

L.W.: So Bin Laden shouldn't have been killed?

E.E.: To be brought to justice, this would have been better for America. ... America committed some mistakes. First, killing him instead of arresting him. Second, they violated the sovereignty of Pakistan, putting the president and the Pakistani government in a critical situation. I criticize Bin Laden and al-Qaida. [Pakistan] is a corrupted regime. But we are talking about the state, not the regime. This gives an important message to others—to Saudi Arabia and all your allies—that they are not trusted.

Osama was a bad Muslim, and no one should take him as representative of Islam—but under no circumstances should he have been taken out, least of all by American forces.

Robert Campbell

PS. I found it amusing that from Dr. El-Erian's point of view, Egypt has been under uninterrupted foreign occupation since 1798. Even when Gamal Abdel-Nasser was its ruler.

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

For me, there is no joy at Bin Ladin's reported death. He was (or perhaps still is) the George Soros of Al-Qaeda funding, but, assuming that he died in the SEALS raid, or years ago, he is survived by much more evil people, not the least of whom is the Football-Spiker-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama. One thinks of Bin Ladin as the ultimate evildoer only because his reputation was puffed up by the press. He was just one more Muslim fanatic.

The thousands who died in the spectacular attack by Muslim fanatics on the Twin Towers were war casualties. The war is being waged by an alliance of "Leftists" (Neo-Bolsheviks) and Muslim fanatics against Americans. We may be losing the war as I write this.

Although the SEALS reportedly carried out their mission in a spectacular and admirable manner, the follow-up, reportedly dumping bin Ladin's body into the ocean, was an obscene exercise in obstruction of justice. Hitler had his body burned in order to keep the world from knowing his ultimate fate with certainty. It was not al-Qaeda, however, who ordered the destruction of the physical evidence of bin Ladin's death: it was the titular head of the "Democrat" political party.

Ultimately, I do not care whether bin Ladin is living or dead, or how many Americans are stupid enough to vote for Obama in 2012 because of the SEALS Abbottabad mission. What I do care about is the fact, reported today by the Rasmussen Poll, that 48% of likely US voters approve "somewhat" of an Alinskyite totalitarian who is deliberately destroying the American economy. Compared to him, an Arabian moneybags is or was small potatoes indeed.

[BaalChatzaf]

. What I do care about is the fact, reported today by the Rasmussen Poll, that 48% of likely US voters approve "somewhat" of an Alinskyite totalitarian who is deliberately destroying the American economy. Compared to him, an Arabian moneybags is or was small potatoes indeed.

Bingo! Obama is the love child of Saul Alinsky and (old) May Daley of Chicago.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

he is survived by much more evil people, not the least of whom is the Football-Spiker-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama.

You regard Obama as more evil than bin Laden? Wow. I’m disinclined to start defending him, I’m basically with Woody Allen’s character Alvy Singer, who said of politicians that ethically they’re a notch below child molester, so I’ll just register disagreement and leave it at that.

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

he is survived by much more evil people, not the least of whom is the Football-Spiker-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama.

You regard Obama as more evil than bin Laden? Wow. I’m disinclined to start defending him, I’m basically with Woody Allen’s character Alvy Singer, who said of politicians that ethically they’re a notch below child molester, so I’ll just register disagreement and leave it at that.

I tend to think about politicians as a notch below the herpes virus.

However, BHO is not really a politician. IMO he's a sock puppet for a neo-Bolshevik faction, which includes Soros. (If the word "faction" sounds too conspiratorial for your taste, try "religion.")

[william.scherk]

Invective can be satisfying for the person who utters it, and invective can be effective in rallying support in a campaign, but I seriously doubt that kookiepants invective as rhetoric is the best means of influencing or convincing a reader of the truth value of such utterances. Here Leavitt mixes invective with some dubious 'facts'.

[bin Laden] was (or perhaps still is) the George Soros of Al-Qaeda funding

- this seems to imply that bin Laden may still be alive, despite the evidence and the acknowledgement by Al Qaeda. The Soros comparison is not convincing.

but, assuming that he died in the SEALS raid, or years ago

- again, maybe bin Laden is Alive! seem to be Leavitt's underlying premise.

he is survived by much more evil people, not the least of whom is the Football-Spiker-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama.

- I read this as a confident assertion that the American President is more evul than Osama bin Laden. It reminds me of the more feverishly kooky anti-Bush rhetoric over the years of his presidency. More evul than Hitler, a fascist, a monster, yadda yadda

One thinks of Bin Ladin as the ultimate evildoer only because his reputation was puffed up by the press.

- here we have Leavitt confounding his own opinions with the great unwashed, and making a simple statement that cannot possibly be true: bin Laden is seen as (the ultimate) evuldoer not because he and his organization committed gruesome atrocities, but because the press puffed up. Certainly the western press ran with the trope of Evuldoer in Chief, but to conclude that Osama's standing in the rankings of evul was solely due to The Press Puff . . . dull reasoning.

He was just one more Muslim fanatic.

- this is an ignorant and unreasonable statement

The thousands who died in the spectacular attack by Muslim fanatics on the Twin Towers were war casualties.

- what utter bullshit. If the victims of this atrocity were 'war casualties' then so were any other innocent non-combatants, like every victim of every other terrorist atrocity. If no distinction can be drawn between combatants and civilians then any civilian is a legitimate target . . .

The war is being waged by an alliance of "Leftists" (Neo-Bolsheviks) and Muslim fanatics against Americans.

- pernicious twaddle

Although the SEALS reportedly carried out their mission in a spectacular and admirable manner, the follow-up, reportedly dumping bin Ladin's body into the ocean, was an obscene exercise in obstruction of justice.

- are you insane? If by your lights there is no difference between a civilian passerby and the leader of an armed faction of jihadi nutcases, then ben Laden is simply a war casualty like any other corpse and could be bulldozed or torched or dragged through the streets as were American and Canadian soldiers in Somalia

Hitler had his body burned in order to keep the world from knowing his ultimate fate with certainty.

- Hitler's death was reported on German radio by his willed successor Admiral Doenitz who told his countrymen to mourn their Führer as a hero. His ultimate fate, death, was broadcast, dumbfuck

48% of likely US voters approve "somewhat" of an Alinskyite totalitarian who is deliberately destroying the American economy.

-- Leavitt, if you think that Alinsky was a totalitarian, then what room on the political spectrum is left for such folks as Pol Pot and Gaddafi? By the same token, what room is left on the other margin of the US spectrum? would the last Bush be described fairly as Hitlerite fascist? If Obama is a neo-Bolshevik destroyer akin to Lenin, then Gingrich is a neo-Hitlerite.

Anyhow, if you would give a link to the Rasmussen poll in its fullness (here), your readers might see that the polls suggest Obama does not enjoy enough solid support at the moment to be elected today, and that the trends over the past two years suggest that his approval rating will continue to slide. In other words, the portents are rather good for Obama opponents . . .

Seriously, your rhetoric is a wonderful combination of slop, illogic, bluster, stupidity and incoherence. Congratulations on demonstrating that you are a Kook of the first order.

[william.scherk]

Obama is the love child of Saul Alinsky and (old) May Daley of Chicago.

And I am Marie of Roumania.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's funny how hatred works.

Bad things must become far worse than they actually are to the hater. The weird part is that the effect in reality is to publicly strengthen the hated thing.

It's not hard to get people to reject something bad when you get the facts in front of them. It's near impossible to get them to reject something bad that is scapegoated all out of proportion.

All the yelling by haters makes it very difficult to get solid facts in front of the public with proper presentation for objective evaluation. Their antics and hysterical misrepresentations compete for the same space as the facts.

People have lives to lead, so they look at that crap and reject the haters as kooks. I know I do. The tragedy is that the facts get ignored in the flush.

The only effective alternative I see is to convince celebrities to make public statements about the facts. They have greater firepower in the media than the haters, even though a lot of celebrities say kooky crap, too.

Michael

[anthony]

William,

It's just as well you normally keep most of your arrows in their quiver, 'cos when you let fly...

Fine analysis, and not gratuitously done, imo.

Do me a favour though - if you ever choose to go after some of my own inanities in that way, give me a couple hours warning. (So I can lay in a supply of tranquilizers.)

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

For me, there is no joy at Bin Ladin's reported death. He was (or perhaps still is) the George Soros of Al-Qaeda funding, but, assuming that he died in the SEALS raid, or years ago, he is survived by much more evil people, not the least of whom is the Football-Spiker-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama. One thinks of Bin Ladin as the ultimate evildoer only because his reputation was puffed up by the press. He was just one more Muslim fanatic.

The thousands who died in the spectacular attack by Muslim fanatics on the Twin Towers were war casualties. The war is being waged by an alliance of "Leftists" (Neo-Bolsheviks) and Muslim fanatics against Americans. We may be losing the war as I write this.

Although the SEALS reportedly carried out their mission in a spectacular and admirable manner, the follow-up, reportedly dumping bin Ladin's body into the ocean, was an obscene exercise in obstruction of justice. Hitler had his body burned in order to keep the world from knowing his ultimate fate with certainty. It was not al-Qaeda, however, who ordered the destruction of the physical evidence of bin Ladin's death: it was the titular head of the "Democrat" political party.

Ultimately, I do not care whether bin Ladin is living or dead, or how many Americans are stupid enough to vote for Obama in 2012 because of the SEALS Abbottabad mission. What I do care about is the fact, reported today by the Rasmussen Poll, that 48% of likely US voters approve "somewhat" of an Alinskyite totalitarian who is deliberately destroying the American economy. Compared to him, an Arabian moneybags is or was small potatoes indeed.

So, the SEALs should have raided the White House? And: America needs a knowledgeable and benevolent dictator instead of this evil President elected by the "stupid enough to vote for" him? The "justice" in war, btw, is after the war and it's called "victor's justice" which sometimes consists of formal trials. War is death and destruction. All sides may be wrong or one side right and the other wrong, etc. Just be on God's side; it shortens the trigger pull.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

Rich, see how it grows? I was in a negative context when I wrote that. You substituted your positive one. I was thinking of terrorists, Michael was thinking of bigotry and you of religious tolerance and commonality.

--Brant

Yup, and the elapsed time clock is still running.

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

Well, well.

I think OBL is almost certainly dead. Could al-Qaeda and Admiral Doenitz have a reason to lie about the death of their heroes? Yes, but IMO it's doubtful they did. Ditto, the Pakistanis who harbored OBL.

Now, about where Alinsky stands on the spectrum: Pol Pot failed, and Gaddafi has at best another ten or fifteen years. Alinsky's shining moment in history is right now, and I am not convinced yet that a Gingrich, a Mitch Daniels, or a Tim Pawlenty is going to defeat the sock puppet in the 2012 election. Another four years of The One wouldn't be good, even if he is nowhere near Torquemada or Vlad the Impaler on the "evul" spectrum.

As for me, where do I stand on the "kook" spectrum?

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

.

It's not hard to get people to reject something bad when you get the facts in front of them.

Michael

Which is why I find deliberate obfuscation of facts particularly annoying.

[Robert Campbell]

The "justice" in war, btw, is after the war and it's called "victor's justice" which sometimes consists of formal trials.

Brant,

As I noted on another thread, it might be better that victor's justice not encompass formal trials.

They just confuse people.

Robert Campbell

[william.scherk]

William,

It's just as well you normally keep most of your arrows in their quiver, 'cos when you let fly...

Fine analysis, and not gratuitously done, imo.

Do me a favour though - if you ever choose to go after some of my own inanities in that way, give me a couple hours warning. (So I can lay in a supply of tranquilizers.)

Every once in a while I think about my own rants, and think about my effectiveness in sometimes choosing invective and sometimes choosing ridicule. My touchstone for such analyses is a suite of pages I stumbled upon at anitra.net, two of them really incisive, Invective & Ridicule. Sometimes I feel I hit my chosen targets and sometimes I go off mark. I do strive to illuminate my strongest underlying point, and wish to use the best means to drill the point into the heads of my imagined readers.

The page on invective was a bit of a wakeup. The essential point is that invective, while satisfying emotionally, is not generally persuasive. Here's the paragraphs that made a mark on me:

Well and thoroughly done, as in the old Bardic Satires and Irish Insults and Jonathan Swift's quote above, dramatic invective can become fascinating, almost beautiful to behold. It can be a satisfying emotional release for the speaker and, vicariously, for the reader, especially in times of frustration, as when addressing idiots in a position of power and other annoyances that won't go away, like commercials and teenagers.

Invective is not, however, a powerful tool of persuasion. Ridicule has sometimes shamed an opponent into altering their position, but invective usually polarizes and hardens positions instead. Some audiences automatically reject all invective. They will refuse to read or listen to it, and will discount any argument you are making with it, on the premise that if you had any facts to use you wouldn't be throwing insults. Those who are uncommitted are just as likely to be won over to the defense of the person you are attacking, as to be won over to your side by the strength of your attack.

Invective is most useful in "preaching to the converted": reinforcing an already-existing attitude, creating solidarity and emotional identification, intensifying emotions to drive action. It may also be used to provoke a reaction. Demonstrators who taunt the police or politicians, for example, are often doing both.

Chances are, Tony, that I would never use invective against you, because I am rather biased towards you. I like the tenor of your opinions if not always the content, and if and where we may disagree, I would want above all to convince or persuade you that you would better revise your opinions. Above all, you rarely rant or at least rarely use invective yourself.

One of the least appealing things about Objectivish rhetoric to me is I think one of the things that make Rand such a powerful writer: invective. Rand was a master. Facts and sober analysis and references and cites hardly matter with invective, however, so at times my reaction to Randian invective is also informed by my overriding concern for fact and reason. Is the invective accurate?

So, I hope I understand the appeal of Randian invective, even if it leaves me bemused. If Rand makes a wonderfully satisfying identification of 'looters' or describes an evul character's face (as Dragonfly once summarized as "fat, flabby, soft, shapeless, slack') this is great for fans and grating for non-fans. When Rand blithely dismisses all Arab opponents of Israel as "savages" and all Arabs as a mob of uncivilized brutes, the crudity of the invective is quite appealing to the simple-minded but appalling to those who aren't quite so willing to replace invective with argument.

So, like Rand, I try to reserve invective for the irrational and unreasoning (and against the stone-hearted), and hope against hope that my negative and emotive language shocks the reader into considering just what side of the barricades of reason he or she is standing on.

Here is an example of Randian invective that I find quite fun, instructive, powerful, well-written, but to me utterly unpersuasive:

"I am not willing to surrender the world to the jerky contortions of self-inducedly brainless bodies with empty eye sockets who perform in stinking basements the immemorial rituals of staving off terror, which are a dime a dozen in any jungle—and to the quavering witch doctors who call it 'art.'"

Edited May 15, 2011 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Well, well.

I think OBL is almost certainly dead. Could al-Qaeda and Admiral Doenitz have a reason to lie about the death of their heroes? Yes, but IMO it's doubtful they did. Ditto, the Pakistanis who harbored OBL.

Now, about where Alinsky stands on the spectrum: Pol Pot failed, and Gaddafi has at best another ten or fifteen years. Alinsky's shining moment in history is right now, and I am not convinced yet that a Gingrich, a Mitch Daniels, or a Tim Pawlenty is going to defeat the sock puppet in the 2012 election. Another four years of The One wouldn't be good, even if he is nowhere near Torquemada or Vlad the Impaler on the "evul" spectrum.

As for me, where do I stand on the "kook" spectrum?

There are over 6 billion people alive today. Good luck in finding enough eventual righteousness amongst them so you can turn your swords into plowshares and "fight no more forever." Most of America's wars America optioned into. Wars of ideas are another matter. I have no sense yet you are interested in ideas, at least from your last few posts.

--Brant

Edited May 15, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As for me, where do I stand on the "kook" spectrum?

JDL,

I can only judge from your recent posts since I don't know you and I don't remember your older stuff.

Going by the recent posts, it's not promising.

I seriously doubt you will convince anyone here on OL to vote against Obama in 2012, seeing that everyone I can think of will already will do so.

But you have just now put up some choice kooky stuff that will come up on Google. Stuff like that can be easily cited as propaganda and hate-speech to sway independents.

And let me go on record here. President Obama is not worse that Osama bin Laden. He is an American President with a limited term of office working within a system of checks and balances. And he is under constant scrutiny. His ideology is wrong, but it is limited.

I find your statement that he is worse than bin Laden boneheaded and disgusting.

(Good friggen' Keriiiiiiiist. I never thought I would see the day I would have to defend Obama, of all people. I thoroughly did not enjoy the experience.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Here is an example of Randian invective that I find quite fun, instructive, powerful, well-written, but to me utterly unpersuasive:

"I am not willing to surrender the world to the jerky contortions of self-inducedly brainless bodies with empty eye sockets who perform in stinking basements the immemorial rituals of staving off terror, which are a dime a dozen in any jungle—and to the quavering witch doctors who call it 'art.'"

I think this is a comment on the beatniks of the 1950s who, at the end of her life, had become "hippies." How she knew the basements stunk, I've no idear. She would have probably hated garage bands, but not garage tech companies that became Apple Computer (now Apple) and Hewlett-Packard, even if they stunk. (Did nature make us to bathe?)

--Brant

missed Woodstock, showers enough--at least I did this morning--and thank God my house has no basement

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

As for me, where do I stand on the "kook" spectrum?

JDL,

you have just now put up some choice kooky stuff that will come up on Google. Stuff like that can be easily cited as propaganda and hate-speech to sway independents.

Michael

Point well taken about Google and hate-speech. In comparing Obama and OBL I failed to specify with respect to what. That is a subject that I understand, but will not follow up with here at this time. And, I didn't think about Google at all.

Perhaps I have become too discouraged recently about the effectiveness of our checks and balances.

Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

JDL,

Cool.

Believe me, I'm no fan of Alinsky. I also have a Glenn Beck corner where his expose of Soros is featured. I know the dangers involved.

I also featured Hannity's video series on Obama's radical left roots before the 2008 election when most people were saying this was not the real problem.

(I have differences with both Beck and Hannity, but they do excellent research. Also, Beck connects dots like no one and Hannity is a hoot in how he fights the sound-bite war--just like a dog with a favorite bone.)

As far as Obama is concerned, I believe he is a highly incompetent administrator in addition to having his roots in a toxic ideology. But I believe he is also pragmatic.

I have high regard for the office of the Presidency. I believe it is made of far stronger stuff than the present occupant.

Michael

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

JDL,

Cool.

Believe me, I'm no fan of Alinsky. I also have a Glenn Beck corner where his expose of Soros is featured. I know the dangers involved.

I also featured Hannity's video series on Obama's radical left roots before the 2008 election when most people were saying this was not the real problem.

(I have differences with both Beck and Hannity, but they do excellent research. Also, Beck connects dots like no one and Hannity is a hoot in how he fights the sound-bite war--just like a dog with a favorite bone.)

As far as Obama is concerned, I believe he is a highly incompetent administrator in addition to having his roots in a toxic ideology. But I believe he is also pragmatic.

I have high regard for the office of the Presidency. I believe it is made of far stronger stuff than the present occupant.

Michael

Thanks for your speedy reply.

As a US President, Obama certainly appears to be incompetent. As a manipulator of the levers of the Executive Branch in order to serve his ideological ends, I have less question about his competence.

As to Obama's pragmatic nature, it seems to me that he will do what he can to get re-elected, and to sound like a centrist if necessary, but I am skeptical that his ideology has budged.

I hadn't thought too much about the strength of the office of the Presidency. I have more concerns about the strength of Congress members to transcend their long and demoralizing history of finding clever ways to make ever more imaginative compromises between food and poison.

As to your earlier posts, I had a shock of realization that I can come across as a hater. I am surely a strong disliker of Bolshevism in its past and current forms, and those "Masters of Deceit" who cover their Bolshevik tracks. If I upset people on a website called "Objectivist Living" I obviously sound irrational, and therefore I need to find ways to tone it down without compromising my beliefs.

Is there a thread on this site about Ayn Rand's famous characterization of Immanuel Kant as "The Most Evil (Evul?) Man Who Ever Lived." I'm curious how that was received here.

Jonathan

[George H. Smith]

Is there a thread on this site about Ayn Rand's famous characterization of Immanuel Kant as "The Most Evil (Evul?) Man Who Ever Lived." I'm curious how that was received here.

Jonathan

I posted a lot on Rand's view of Kant last year on OL, as well as criticisms of Peikoff's treatment in The Ominous Parallels. You can find them if you search my posts that include the word "Kant." Here are some samples that I found with a quick search:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8446&view=findpost&p=95293

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8595&view=findpost&p=98171

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8595&view=findpost&p=98247

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8595&view=findpost&p=98298

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8595&view=findpost&p=98327

This is just a random sampling. There are many, many more. Some appear in a thread I started titled "Rand's notions of Kant and Hume."

Ghs

[Libertarian Muslim]

In your estimation, what's the 'pecking order' for Muslims' acceptance or rejection of other faith and ideology: is worshipping some God better than no god?

Depends who you ask I guess? I don't think there is one, I do know however that we have an affinity for the People of the Book as it's an honored title.

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews..." -- Qur'an 5:82

The verse states:

Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not (Qur'an 5:82)

First note how it states that Jews and Idolators are two different groups, hence the earlier made assertion that they were idolators was incorrect.

Nevertheless, let us address the verse as a whole. This statement was not untrue for its time, the Pagan Arabs and the Jews of the region were in fact the most hostile people towards Islam there. Islam upset the social order of both groups.. The Pagans of Quraish and the Jews of Yathrib (Medina) benefited greatly off of the unjust practices of the region. Islam came and changed the social order which benefited them so they disliked Islam.

The Jews of Yathrib were amazing craftsmen and would make and sell the weapons and armor to be used in the wars between the Pagan tribes of Yathrib, they'd then give loans with huge interest rates to the Pagans of the Yathrib to be able to purchase those weapons.

Islam upset that social order because the Pagan tribes of Yathrib became Muslim and there was no more wars between them.

That is not to say that the Jews in general are the most hateful of Islam or that all Jews are damned to Hellfire. Nothing could be further from the truth, the Qur'an even states in the same chapter:

Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (Qur'an 5:69)

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Qur'an 5:51

Hmmm.. This comes from a root word which can either mean protector or friend.

The context is not in friendship, as the verse previously mentioned the Christians of that time as being nearest in affection to the Muslims.. That definitely describes friendship.

What this is referring to is specifically protection.. Muslims should not allow their security or safety to be in the hands of non Muslims and rely solely on them for protection. It encourages Muslims to protect themselves as the Muslims were always persecuted by the Pagans after other Pagans that had some treaty with the Muslims that included the protection of those Muslims had either broken the treaty or the treaty became invalid due to the passing of the tribal leader that took them under his protection..

I wouldn't expect Jews to only rely on the protection of non Jews because history shows that this is not a sufficient way to protect ones' self. Therefore I don't think that Muslims, nor any group should have to rely on different groups to protect them.

I will keep that in mind the next time I hear about Muslims blowing up a synagogue or killing a Jew. Do you remember what happened to Daniel Perle? I do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Perhaps not, but Jews have committed many other horrendous crimes with their religion as a motive but that doesn't mean we should judge all Jews based on that.. Just as it's silly to judge all Muslims of it.

Do these Koranic verses refer to all idolators, for all time, or just the Quraysh and any other specific tribes that had conflicts with the Muslims in the 7th century?

You make the argument that Abraham built the Kaaba, which amounts to a historical claim that that shrine belongs solely to the Abrahamic faiths, yet the idolators worshiped there as well, as far back as history records its existence. Why shouldn't it be open to everyone?

All Idolators, for all time.

It is the case that Pagans used the Kaaba for worship when polytheism was introduced into the Arabian Peninsula, but this was long after the Kaaba was built and was an abomination.

No, we won't allow idol worship back into the Kaaba

Your suggestion that there are no atheists in the Middle East is highly disingenuous, as is your suggestion that religious dissenters have nothing to fear. A minute of searching the web would reveal evidence to the contrary. Consider this excerpt from an interview with an atheist from the UAE, conducted in 2006.

I didn't suggest that there's no atheists in the Middle East. I said that Arabs would find the idea as confusing.

As for LM's understanding of atheism/agnosticism, I honestly think it is nil. He accused Xray of being a fanatical atheist (when she has honestly announced to be agnostic). I can only imagine what he thinks of my actual atheism.

I'm sorry but I don't take the time of ponder on your atheism.. It's your own business and not mine. I wish you the best.

LM is not stupid, not unkind, not full of unreasoning hate, but I believe he is trapped between commitments to two imaginary worlds: a wonderland of Islamic Pollyanna loveliness and a wonderland of pure, sweet Western values in action. I appreciate his rather sweet naivete about human nature, but wish he could admit to the conflicts in his mind.

I don't see the conflicts that you're referring to.

He will always keep his Western citizenship, I bet. His harsh, flip denunciations of Muslim authorities (such as Hassan of Morocco) reflect his delightfully arrogant assumption that he knows better than anyone the perfect True Islam. Since he cannot read or effectively communicate in Arabic, has never received religious instruction -- while demanding that no one can speak for Islam except after a grueling formal education (viz. Hassan), his self-appointment as an authority on Islam resembles that of Richard Wiig. Absurd.

I will keep Western citizenship of course, I was born in the West and for all purposes am a Westerner.

I also don't proclaim to know everything or better than anyone the perfect true Islam, I'm still learning. I can read Arabic and can speak basic Arabic. In terms of religious instruction.. Not a formal education no.. But now 10 years of intense study and bouncing my ideas off of and asking questions of the scholars I had around me and overseas.

You did deny that Islamic forces conducted wars of conquest in the two centuries after Muhammad's death. I asked you specifically about the conquest of Sind (now part of Pakistan), and about various conquests in North Africa.

Perhaps you can show me where I've said that?

If you really don't think that conquest played a significant role in spreading Islam—not just during those two centuries, but also during the early days of the Ottoman Empire, or during a series of protracted conflicts in India and in other parts of the world—then consider the following:

I don't think that people accepting Islam was as a result of conquest and that they felt obligated to do so.. When I think of people accepting religion because of conquest I do think about the conquistadors going into Peru and other places in the name of Christ and forcibly converting people.

I don't believe that Islam spread like that.

I'm an actual atheist, too. And I never did get a response from LM about a couple of ahadith that appear to license the execution of atheists.

Which hadiths where you referring to?