How to Deal with Islam

[Brant Gaede]

The Quakers in colonial America needed to fund war operations against the America Indians who were giving them all sorts of trouble. The problem was it was against their religion, so they appropriated the needed funds for another purpose and turned their backs to their actual use. The United States (and Europe and various other people and peoples) are at war with Islam, but the US champions separation of church and state and cannot wage any such war de jour. The US must turn its back on the war it should wage and sponsor.

The war with Islam is not the war in Iraq.

The problem with Islam is that it is essentially the religion of nothing, as is Christianity of course, although Christianity has sublimated and obscured this fact regarding itself. There is no God! But if one accepts that there is, then Islam still is nothing in that Muslims are not very inventive or productive. Who made those planes flown into those buildings? Who trained the terrorist pilots? Dubai may be some sort of exception.

In regard to the (dead) terrorists themselves, all their bodies and body parts should be wrapped in pigskins and buried.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I moved this from the Article queue. It is too short to be an article, but it is good for a discussion starter.

I agree that we are at war with radical Islamism. Islam by itself is pretty benign.

Here is a very good article on the difference by Daniel Pipes:

Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism

Islamism is actually more than a religion. It is an ideology. Here is quote from the article:

To start, in devising strategy towards Islamism we must very specifically and very repeatedly distinguish between Islam and Islamism. I am talking about developing a policy toward Islamism, not Islam. States do not have policies towards religions, but they do respond to ideologies.

Michael

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Brant,

I moved this from the Article queue. It is too short to be an article, but it is good for a discussion starter.

I agree that we are at war with radical Islamism. Islam by itself is pretty benign.

Here is a very good article on the difference by Daniel Pipes:

Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism

Islamism is actually more than a religion. It is an ideology. Here is quote from the article:

To start, in devising strategy towards Islamism we must very specifically and very repeatedly distinguish between Islam and Islamism. I am talking about developing a policy toward Islamism, not Islam. States do not have policies towards religions, but they do respond to ideologies.

Michael

"I was ordered to fight all men until they say: "There is no God but Allah" ".

Muhammad. His final address to his followers. March 632

"I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah."

Saladin, January 1189

I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad"

Osama bin Laden, November 2001

Quotes from the introduction to "Islamic Imperialism: A History" by Efraim Karsh.

MSK: "Islam by itself is pretty benign." A groundless assertion. In fact, Islam, is a malignant evil. Thankfully a significant percentage of Muslims are nominal "Muslims". They don't, for example, follow their religious duty of jihad agianst the Infidel.

This, Islam vs Islamism, is pure fiction.

Wayne Simmons

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This, Islam vs Islamism, is pure fiction.

Heh.

Talk to Daniel Pipes and Leonard Peikoff about it (or even, God help me, Craig Biddle).

Convince them first, then try to convince me.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Wayne,

Saying that all Muslims are Islamic imperialists is like saying that all Christians believe that we are living in the End Times, and the prophecies of the Book of Revelation will be fulfilled any day now.

Imperialism is a potential within Islam, just as apocalyptics are a potential within Christianity. Neither can be wholly eradicated, because each is supported by some portions of the religion's sacred text. But neither has to be the dominant theme within the religion.

Robert Campbell

[blackhorse]

More muslim's and muslim communities NEED to speak out against shari'a and islamo-fascism. A lot of the problem is that too many are silent on condemning the islamo-fascist tyrants.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More muslim's and muslim communities NEED to speak out against shari'a and islamo-fascism. A lot of the problem is that too many are silent on condemning the islamo-fascist tyrants.

Blackhorse,

Excellent.

You have stated one of the main goals that our intellectuals should work to achieve. These Muslim communities will not speak out unless they are convinced to do so. If they are not presented with good ideas in a manner that they can understand, they will simply not do anything but what they have been doing.

This is the intellectual task that the "nuke 'em all" crowd is eschewing. I think this attitude is yellow-belly cowardice. Some intellectual heroes! They are afraid that if they speak to a Muslim, they will be murdered.

Michael

[Laure]

There's plenty of fear to go around. I'm not "afraid that if I speak to a Muslim, I will be murdered" but I'd sure as hell be afraid to go meet with some cleric in Iraq or Afghanistan! Remember Daniel Pearl?

It'd be great if more Muslims spoke out against shari'a and Islamo-fascism. But isn't it illegal to do so in many countries? It's not hard to understand why they keep their mouths shut, when you can be sentenced to death for converting to Christianity, or shot dead in the streets for wearing tennis shorts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Laure,

Here is a Wikipedia article on Daniel Pearl.

He wasn't meeting with just "some cleric." From the article:

Daniel Pearl (October 10, 1963 – February 1, 2002) was a journalist who garnered international concern when he was kidnapped (and eventually murdered) in Karachi, Pakistan. Pearl was investigating the case of Richard Reid, links between Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and $100,000 wired to September 11 chief operative Mohammed Atta's account in the US by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, following instructions by Pakistani General Mahmoud Ahmad — the ISI director general at the time.

(...)

On January 23, 2002, on his way to an interview with a supposed terrorist leader, Pearl was kidnapped by a militant group calling itself The National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty.

I don't put that in the same bucket as what I am talking about.

Michael

[Guest Damage Inc.]

This, Islam vs Islamism, is pure fiction.

Heh.

Talk to Daniel Pipes and Leonard Peikoff about it (or even, God help me, Craig Biddle).

Convince them first, then try to convince me.

Michael

This isn't dealing with the issue now is it? The meaning Daniel Pipes gives to Islamism is different than those Objectivists who may use the word. They do not mean to create an artificial dichotomy between Islam and Islamism. The word has taken on a lot of conceptual baggage which creates conceptual confusion. Islamism is an unnecessary concept. Nominal Muslim vs radical Muslim is more accurate.

Wayne Simmons

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Wayne,

Saying that all Muslims are Islamic imperialists is like saying that all Christians believe that we are living in the End Times, and the prophecies of the Book of Revelation will be fulfilled any day now.

Imperialism is a potential within Islam, just as apocalyptics are a potential within Christianity. Neither can be wholly eradicated, because each is supported by some portions of the religion's sacred text. But neither has to be the dominant theme within the religion.

Robert Campbell

Robert, this is a vacuous assertion. Where is your proof? I quoted Muhammad. This was his final address to his followers. The only way you can "prove" your case is to make the claim that a nominal Muslim is in fact a consistent Muslim. Logic and reality will not allow you to be correct.

Wayne Simmons

Edited December 4, 2006 by Damage Inc.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The meaning Daniel Pipes gives to Islamism is different than those Objectivists who may use the word. They do not mean to create an artificial dichotomy between Islam and Islamism. The word has taken on a lot of conceptual baggage which creates conceptual confusion. Islamism is an unnecessary concept. Nominal Muslim vs radical Muslim is more accurate.

Wayne,

Are you sure about this? I think you are going to be extremely hard pressed to back that up with quotes.

The meaning has been very clear in the works by Objectivists I have read and the lectures I have listened to, and they align perfectly with what Pipes means, i.e., Islamism being a political ideology based on Islam with the agenda of world conquest, and Islam being simply a religion practiced using the Qur'an as the basic text (like Christianity uses the Bible).

Anyway, why tell me that they are using the term incorrectly and are espousing an "unnecessary concept" according to you? I got it from them, and I can give quotes. So why not tell them?

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Wayne,

If being a consistent Christian means following the Bible without exception, then one simply cannot be a consistent Christian, though one might be a devout Christian, or a conservative Christian, or a fanatical Christian. The Bible is full of contradictions. So (drawing the boundaries ever more narrowly) are the New Testament, and the sayings attributed directly to Jesus in the four canonical gospels.

The Qur'an also contains contradictions, some of them on matters of great importance to the present discussion. Should Jews be slaughtered without mercy, or treated with respect as "people of the Book"? Depends on which suras you go with...

I haven't studied the hadith (the sayings attributed to Muhammad), but given the contradictions in the Qur'an, I expect the hadith to be plentifully contradictory as well.

I cannot see, then, how the distinction between "consistent" and "nominal" Muslims could be any more valid than the distinction between "consistent" and "nominal" Christians.

Robert Campell

[galtgulch]

Robert,

Given that ideas move the world, it doesn't matter if most self described Muslims have no incentive or desire or impulse to kill anyone. If there are only a relative few who would be more than willing to sneak a suitcase dirty nuclear weapon into any number of American cities we are in danger.

I am not saying this to justify a preemptive strike against the entire Islamic world.

As I understand it they do not even have to wait until they develop a nuclear power plant. Our own country is filled with hundreds of factories in which bars of radioactive cobalt are used to irradiate foods. Such facilities are not well protected. I am surprised that none have as yet been broken into.

If they attach plastic explosive to the cobalt bar and explode it in the center of any of our major cities that would render the city uninhabitable for centuries.

It is a wonder that I still sleep nights. Please show me where I am wrong. I hope I am not putting this idea into their heads.

galtgulch

Edited December 5, 2006 by galtgulch

[Robert Campbell]

gg,

All the more reason to persuade the roughly 850 million Muslims who do not want to sacrifice themselves to bring about worldwide Islamic empire that the 150 million who do want worldwide Islamic empire are their mortal enemies, as surely as they are our mortal enemies.

In The World Is Flat (2nd edition), Tom Friedman points out that there are 150 million Muslims in India. In fact, India has about the same number of Muslims as Pakistan. What's more, Muslims have from time to time been in some political danger as a minority in post-1947 India. Yet no Indian Muslim has yet appeared on the roster of Al-Qa'eda or any similar organization. Friedman's explanation: Indian Muslims are too busy making money to devote their lives and resources to destroying the West or putting Islamic Imperialist regimes in power.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; Your point about India and Indian Muslims in excellent. I think one suggestion I would make is the West must pressure the Saudi to remove their support for Wahabbiisms. The Saudis must be pressured to stop this and I think there would be almost an immediate improvement.

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Wayne,

If being a consistent Christian means following the Bible without exception, then one simply cannot be a consistent Christian, though one might be a devout Christian, or a conservative Christian, or a fanatical Christian. The Bible is full of contradictions. So (drawing the boundaries ever more narrowly) are the New Testament, and the sayings attributed directly to Jesus in the four canonical gospels.

The Qur'an also contains contradictions, some of them on matters of great importance to the present discussion. Should Jews be slaughtered without mercy, or treated with respect as "people of the Book"? Depends on which suras you go with...

I haven't studied the hadith (the sayings attributed to Muhammad), but given the contradictions in the Qur'an, I expect the hadith to be plentifully contradictory as well.

I cannot see, then, how the distinction between "consistent" and "nominal" Muslims could be any more valid than the distinction between "consistent" and "nominal" Christians.

Robert Campell

Even if I concede that a Muslim can't be *entirely* consistent ( Religion does clash with reality) it doesn't follow that we can't define what a Muslim is in terms of fundamentals. This seems to be the logical implication of your position, that we can't define what a Muslim is. Ludwig Von Mises pointed out in, "Socialism", that Karl Marx was also contradictory in many of his writings. So would you conclude that we can't define Marxism based on contradictions in the Text? You're on a slippery slope, Robert. The attempt to bring to the world, a "workers paradise", lead to mass murder on a grand scale. Since there are contradictions in Marxist thought are you going to argue against defining a consistent application of Marxist thought? Would you argue for a more moderate version of Socialism? While you're at it, how about Nazism? And, why not?

The concept of Jihad goes back to Muhammad's time in Medina. Muhammad introduced this concept ..."as a means to entice his local followers into raiding the Meccan caravans , developing and amplifiying it with the expansion of his political ambitions until it became a rallying call for world domination." (Islamic Imperialism, Efraim Karash).

Wayne Simmons

[BaalChatzaf]

More muslim's and muslim communities NEED to speak out against shari'a and islamo-fascism. A lot of the problem is that too many are silent on condemning the islamo-fascist tyrants.

Here is the usual response of American Muslims to the problem of Islamic terrorism, particularly the suicide bombings: "Yes, it is terrible, but...."

When I hear the "but...." I want to reach for my Uzi.

Ba'al Chatzaf