Interesting Take on Islam and Libertarianism

[Darrell Hougen]

It must be Islam that changes, not our view of it.

Darrell,

I don't care if Islam changes or not. Essentially, I just want to be left alone to pursue my interests in peace. I also want my interactions with Muslims to be peaceful, even when we disagree. If Muslims do that, they can keep Islam any way they wish.

As to libertarian issues, I believe strongly in the powers of persuasion once violence is off the table in communications. If many Islamic countries practice barbaric customs, so do many non-Islamic countries. Including our own government.

It is the barbaric customs that have to change. I refuse to play the game of looking at two barbarians and saying one is the barbarian and the other is not. I prefer to define barbarian and point to barbaric acts and say, "There is my evidence. Let the title of barbarian fit whoever does these things."

As to our view of Islam, if you think "our view" does not have to change, what is your view of it? What are your conceptual referents?

In my understanding of rational epistemology, we must correctly identify something before judging it. If the identification is incorrect, then of course that view has to change. Isn't that obvious? How are we going to judge something with any claim to rationality if we don't even know what it is?

There is only one way to find out if your view is correct. That is to look to your conceptual referents. We get one view of Islam on Objectivist boards (where anti-Islamic blogs, etc. are often quoted) and in the mainstream media. Does that standard satisfy you as conceptual referent enough for correct identification? It does not satisfy me, especially since I have lived among Muslims (in Brazil) for a fairly long period of time. I have a whole other frame of conceptual referents and many of them contradict many of the things I read and view. Also, the Muslim people I encounter here in the USA, and I mean encounter personally, fit my conceptual referents from Brazil much more than they do the image portrayed by the MSM, the anti-Islamic blogosphere, Objectivist discussion boards, etc.

I know the evil people exist. I know the good ones do, too.

Adonis is here providing a set of conceptual referents for those unaccustomed to interacting with a devout Muslim. Why not withhold evaluation and objectively observe what he really is? How he acts? What he says? And that means about everything, not just the hot-points. Blank your previous evaluations out for a while and start from the beginning. They will be there when you return from this mental task.

Besides, I think he's a good dude. He certainly has acted like one so far...

Then I suggest adding that data to your pool of knowledge and processing it. After all that, if you feel the need to condemn, then by all means condemn. At least you will have worked at identifying something correctly first-hand instead of taking someone else's word for it.

Michael

Michael,

1. If you want to be left in peace, then Islam will have to change. Islam is not about leaving people in peace. In fact, no philosophy that is incompatible with freedom is about leaving people in peace.
   
2. I can't believe that you can actually draw a moral equivalence between our country and our government and the tyrannical regimes around the world. There have been a few bad actors in this country, but where are the mass graves? Where are the beheadings? As the most powerful country in the world, we could commit atrocities around the globe at will, but look at Iraq. How many Middle Easterners were beheaded by American soldiers? How many American (and allied) soldiers and civilians were beheaded by people from the Middle East?
   
3. I listed some of my referents in a previous post. I admit that I haven't personally known a lot of Muslims. I had an ex-boss that was Muslim and he was a great guy, but also a very moderate Muslim. His family exchanged gifts at Christmas! My problem starts with Muhammad and the Quran. It continues with the Muslims that I hear on the Radio. Even Adonis is on here justifying stoning.
   
4. My responses were to things that he said. I did not pass judgment on him until he opened his mouth. I'm glad he's not a raving misanthrope, but he has also said things that I find objectionable.
   

I'm happy if Adonis is looking for justifications for peace and liberty in the Quran and other Islamic references. Perhaps there are verses that moderate Muslims look at to justify their moderate behavior. That's great. But, I'm not convinced that Islam can be redeemed. In its essence, Islam is a religion of submission. The word Islam itself means submission. It is hard to see how a submissive people can ever develop pride, independence, rationality and other attributes required for life in a free society.

Compare Islam with Christianity. At its heart, Christianity is a religion of love. Love is the theme and essence of Christianity. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. "Love your neighbor as yourself." Mark 12:31. It is not hard to see how the influence of Christianity could have been much more moderating than the influence of Islam.

Moreover, Islam explicitly calls for an Islamic government. Christianity does not. Christianity is very accommodating to the notion that there can be separation of church and state. Islam is not. That is one of the reasons that Islam will NOT leave you in peace.

I am not arguing here for the virtues of Christianity, by the way. Despite all the kind words contained in Christianity, there have historically been plenty of wars fought over Christian beliefs and plenty of horrors committed in its name. I just don't see how Islam can hope to be better when it starts out with such anti-freedom precepts in the first place.

Darrell

[Robert Campbell]

Adonis,

I've read the Qur'an (in the Dawood translation). I haven't read any hadith. There is a whole lot that I don't know, and I amenable to correction.

From my reading of the Qur'an and what I've learned about Muhammad's life, here's my response to the claims you made over on SOLO:

[Muhammad pbuh] changed that, in his life he:

- Set a process to prevent wars without reason and to try and resolve conflict quickly through negotiation with justice being paramount.

He didn't always use it. Didn't he order the mass execution all of the adult males in one of the Medinan clans that had fought against him?

- He recognized and stood up for the rights that women deserved, that is the rights to be considered equal to men, they were given their rights to vote, speak out against things they didn't like and have their voices heard, choose their husbands, divorce, inherit, to engage in commerce and own their own wealth with their family or husbands having no right to it. They had the right to be provided for, whether that is by her family or if married by her husband and the disgusting practice of burying baby girls was outlawed with heavy punishments on those who were guilty of it.

The Qur'an forbids killing baby girls, which represented progress over previous social practices. It sets the percentages of an inheritance for daughters as well as sons, but also ordains that the daughter's share shall be 1/2 of what each son gets. It ordains hijab, though just what that originally meant is unclear. I don't recall any reference to anyone voting on anything.

- Slavery in the fashion practiced by the US and the British was forbidden and the Prophet himself and his wonderful wife Khadijah may God bless them both spent out of their own pockets as merchants to free as many slaves as they could, all people were recognized as being equal regardless or race, colour or financial status.

The Qur'an encourages manumitting slaves as a charitable act. But it takes the existence of slavery for granted. It even reminds men that they should not find the restrictions on their sexual behavior too onerous, since, among other things, they may force their slave girls to have sex with them whenever they want. Maybe you mean that slavery was not supposed to be based on race in the Qur'an—it appears that it was not—but that would not have been much of a source of comfort to those who were kept as slaves by Muslims.

Millions of Africans were seized and sold into slavery in the Islamic world, about as many as were seized and sold into slavery in the New World. Whether the death rate was higher from the "Middle Passage" or being marched across the Sahara is still being debated. Male slaves sold to the Islamic world were frequently castrated. The last places on earth where old-fashioned chattel slavery is practiced are in the Islamic world (Mauritiania, Sudan). Anti-slavery movements in Europe and the Americas did not get going until very late (the 1700s). Did they ever get going in any part of the Islamic world?

- Orphans were given a special protection status and regulations were put in place to ensure that not only were they looked after properly, but that any inheritance that they may have had was not misappropriated or squandered by their guardians.

I don't know how well these injunctions were heeded in practice, but the Qur'an is emphatic about protecting orphans.

- The tribalism and culturalism where disgusting practices were happening were discouraged and those which harmed other people were outlawed. Any person could take even the Prophet Muhammad himself before the courts and level accusations against him without fear of persecution.

Was this principle ever tested with a lawsuit against Muhammad himself? Since the Qur'an includes a few passages mandating special privileges for the Prophet, one wonders how that would have worked out. It's clear that there are strong ideals of equality (for male Islamic believers) in the Qur'an; but isn't Islam frequently cited to justify the tribal divisions and the status distinctions that still exist in the Muslim world?

- Religious minorities had rights and were guaranteed protection by the Muslims, even to the extent where the Muslims were obligated to fight to the death to protect them.

During the Middle Ages, dhimmi status under Muslim rule was generally a better deal than being a Jew or a Muslim under the rule of a Christian prince. But it wasn't freedom of religion as that is now understood. For instance, converting Muslims was strictly forbidden.

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

[*] If you want to be left in peace, then Islam will have to change. Islam is not about leaving people in peace. In fact, no philosophy that is incompatible with freedom is about leaving people in peace.

Islam is neither incompatible with freedom nor against leaving people in peace. All you need to do is look at the relationship between Muhammad pbuh and the Negus of Abyssinia.

[*] I can't believe that you can actually draw a moral equivalence between our country and our government and the tyrannical regimes around the world. There have been a few bad actors in this country, but where are the mass graves? Where are the beheadings? As the most powerful country in the world, we could commit atrocities around the globe at will, but look at Iraq. How many Middle Easterners were beheaded by American soldiers? How many American (and allied) soldiers and civilians were beheaded by people from the Middle East?

You mean like the near extermination of all of the millions Native Americans? Countless broken treaties? Slavery? Lynchings? Rapes? Torture? Segregation? Racism?

The CIA backed assassination of JFK because he wanted to end the federal reserve, stop the military industrial complex, dismantle the CIA and bring troops home from Vietnam?

COINTELPRO?

The FBI involvement in murdering Malcolm X because he was too popular and when he began speaking about the unity of mankind and not the segregation of races and saying the only criteria should be justice?

The war in Vietnam? The countless Latin American dictators put into place and their goons being trained at the School of the Americas and by the CIA to torture, execute etc to put fear into their people. The 1,500,000 Indonesians who died as a result of the US putting Soharto into power and supporting his dictatorship.

Supporting the Bin Laden family, Arab tyrants and monarchs, training and paying Al-Qaeda and aiding the Taliban?

Clean you own house up before you start saying you need to change us.

If you don't like having your soldiers being beheaded in Iraq, it's simple..

Follow the following steps:

1. Don't install dictators and tyrants as governments to create 'stability' in the region (ie to ensure your oil is coming no matter which civilians are oppressed).

2. Don't give those dictators chemical and biological weapons and have them use it against their neighbor who just became independent after overthrowing the tyrant you put into place after creating a coup against their democratically elected government.

3. Don't bomb a country with Depleted Uranium weapons and then put sanctions on them so that they can't buy the medical equipment to treat the cancer you created with those weapons.

4. Don't let those sanctions kill more than 1,500,000 Iraqis between the years 1991 and 2003, of which more than 500,000 were under the age of 5 years old.

5. Don't have your soldiers there occupying land which is not yours.

These are just some steps your country could take to ensure that your soldiers aren't needlessly losing their lives to beheadings and IED's.

Keep your noses out of other people's lands and stop trying to rule absolutely everything in the world. If you allow people to make their own decisions and show a good example of liberty, they'll come running towards that liberty because ultimately it's a better idea.

I'm happy if Adonis is looking for justifications for peace and liberty in the Quran and other Islamic references. Perhaps there are verses that moderate Muslims look at to justify their moderate behavior. That's great. But, I'm not convinced that Islam can be redeemed. In its essence, Islam is a religion of submission. The word Islam itself means submission. It is hard to see how a submissive people can ever develop pride, independence, rationality and other attributes required for life in a free society.

You lack an understanding of Islamic history then, we submit to only one thing. God. That means we believe ourselves equal to all human beings and able to achieve anything in this world.

Compare Islam with Christianity. At its heart, Christianity is a religion of love. Love is the theme and essence of Christianity. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. "Love your neighbor as yourself." Mark 12:31. It is not hard to see how the influence of Christianity could have been much more moderating than the influence of Islam.

The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him said:

"You will not enter paradise until you believe, and you will not believe until you love one another"

Moreover, Islam explicitly calls for an Islamic government. Christianity does not. Christianity is very accommodating to the notion that there can be separation of church and state. Islam is not. That is one of the reasons that Islam will NOT leave you in peace.

What is an Islamic Government? Are you aware of what you speak about?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can't believe that you can actually draw a moral equivalence between our country and our government and the tyrannical regimes around the world.

Darrell,

It's a good thing you don't have to because I didn't do that.

I discussed barbaric acts, not countries.

(EDIT: I actually did discuss the USA training of the secret police of dictators. I can, too. I know about this from more than reading about it.

In terms of countries, I find business+government to be a bad mixture when monopolistic privileges are enforced. I also find this to be equally bad in the USA and abroad. In fact, I find this to be equally bad in all countries on earth. If that is "moral equivalence," then make the best of it. It's what I hold.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

These are just some steps your country could take to ensure that your soldiers aren't needlessly losing their lives to beheadings and IED's.

Adonis,

This is what I was talking about earlier. I agree with some of the things you mentioned, but there is no way you could possibly know that vicious people will stop being vicious when their complaints are removed.

That also doesn't bear out with my findings on human nature. In my experience, when one reason is removed, a vicious person will find another to commit atrocities.

I'm not justifying the behavior I already mentioned, some of which is contained in your observations. I'm just trying to keep this real and on an individual responsibility level instead of "us against them."

People who do bad things are responsible for what they do, irrespective of their race, citizenship, religion or philosophy.

The only real solution to human atrocities is installing non-coercive individual rights as a moral and legal underpinning of law.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

He didn't always use it. Didn't he order the mass execution all of the adult males in one of the Medinan clans that had fought against him?

No, he always used it. We find war detestable but will fight if we have to.

The Medinan tribe that you're referring to had first committed itself to the constitution of Medina thus making themselves citizens of Medina. When the Muslims were being attacked by a force of 10,000 soldiers from the Pagan tribes in Mecca (which was the largest army the Arabs had ever seen at the time), the Medinans set about defending the nation by building a large ditch around Medina which ultimately saved it, however during the battles, this tribe committed treason by attacking the Medinan army while it was defending Medina. Once the Pagans were sent packing, the Army was sent to subdue this insurrection.

Once the insurrection was subdued and the war was over, the question was, what to do with the tribe in question?

Well as I've pointed out, the crime was treason and in most nations even today, the punishment of which is the death penalty. The tribe as a whole made this decision to engage in this treason and so were all guilty.

The tribe requested, as a part of their terms of surrender that Muhammad would not be their judge and then asked for another judge, they requested a man who was previously a Rabbi but became a Muslim would be their judge.

Islam dictates that we are unable to impose an Islamic Law judgment on non Muslims because that isn't fair on them, unless of course they request it.. But because they were Jewish the former Rabbi who they asked to judge them, in turn judged them according to Jewish law:

"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies." Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (Today's New International Version)

Had they asked the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him to judge them, he wouldn't have handed out such a punishment. He probably would have just banished the tribe from Medina like he did with another.

So ultimately, it wasn't about war, it was about the law of the state and treason.

The Qur'an forbids killing baby girls, which represented progress over previous social practices. It sets the percentages of an inheritance for daughters as well as sons, but also ordains that the daughter's share shall be 1/2 of what each son gets. It ordains hijab, though just what that originally meant is unclear. I don't recall any reference to anyone voting on anything.

Yes, it does set a percentage.. but the question is why?

A lot of people say this is unfair but let's take a look at it.

1. In Jewish and Christian law, women have no right to inheritance whatsoever unless there are no sons.

2. Up until recently, common law dictated that a man who marries a woman, automatically owns all of her wealth (An example is that of George Washington who married a rich widow).

Also,

Let's take a look at what Islam says should be spent by men and women in terms of money?

The financial obligations of a man are as follows;

- He has to pay the expenses for the wedding and the dowry when he gets married to his wife.

- He has to pay for his house and land.

- To provide for his wife and his family, that is a right women have.

- He is also required to provide for his parents once they get old and need help with things like that.

- He is also not allowed to touch his wife's wealth whether she works or inherits, it is her own and he has no access to it and still has to provide for her, even if she's rich.

The financial obligations of a woman are as such:

- Nothing.

- None

- Nada

- Zilch

- Zero

So is there any wonder why a male gets twice the share than that of a female? All of the financial burdens in society are on males so it means that maybe 100% is going to be spent on his family, whereas for a woman. She has no financial burdens whatsoever and can spend it all on whatever she likes.. Be it shoes, land, education, candy or even Michael Bolton and Yanni CD's.

In terms of hijab, yes it does you are correct.

Voting is an interesting issue, women had their opinions counted as equal citizens in matters of the state when the citizens were asked. This had never happened before.

The Qur'an encourages manumitting slaves as a charitable act. But it takes the existence of slavery for granted. It even reminds men that they should not find the restrictions on their sexual behavior too onerous, since, among other things, they may force their slave girls to have sex with them whenever they want. Maybe you mean that slavery was not supposed to be based on race in the Qur'an—it appears that it was not—but that would not have been much of a source of comfort to those who were kept as slaves by Muslims.

Millions of Africans were seized and sold into slavery in the Islamic world, about as many as were seized and sold into slavery in the New World. Whether the death rate was higher from the "Middle Passage" or being marched across the Sahara is still being debated. Male slaves sold to the Islamic world were frequently castrated. The last places on earth where old-fashioned chattel slavery is practiced are in the Islamic world (Mauritiania, Sudan). Anti-slavery movements in Europe and the Americas did not get going until very late (the 1700s). Did they ever get going in any part of the Islamic world?

Yes, Islam encouraged the freeing of slaves and in fact slave owners are forced to negotiate a date with their slaves to set them free which is reasonable if they can't afford to do so immediately, and should even give the slave a portion of their wealth so as to help them set themselves up.

For those slaves that were in captivity, their slavery was reduced to a form of involuntary servitude and were given human rights. Also the right to eat what their master ate, sleep the way they slept and dress the way they dressed. They also made it so that no free person could be taken into slavery again except in one condition and that is in war.

In Islam, war is detestable and we believe it better to make treaties and agreements of trade and commerce with all nations to ensure prosperity. On occasion however the Muslims have been attacked by unrelenting armies who won't stop until the Muslims are wiped out.

If the Muslims were forced to fight an aggressor to the extent of having to take over their nation, then as you could imagine, this would be a very costly venture in both material wealth and human lives. So reparations would be in order. As a way to deter others from doing so in the future we make the cost for the nation as large as possible. That is, all of their wealth and property are taken as war booty to help pay the cost of the war.

So what to do with the remaining citizens who have no wealth or property and thus no means to live? Well there's a few options there.

1. Kill them all. The Pagan and Christian laws were pretty big on that.

2. Kill the men and take the women and children into slavery. The Jewish laws were pretty big on that.

3. Banish them all from the land as refugees.

or

4. Take them as servants and provide for them while they work for you until such a time that you can let them go with some amount of money so they can begin re-establishing themselves.

Also, regarding forced sex with slaves from my understanding this isn't allowed.

I don't know how well these injunctions were heeded in practice, but the Qur'an is emphatic about protecting orphans.

Yes at the time of Muhammad they most certainly were. Now however not so much.

Was this principle ever tested with a lawsuit against Muhammad himself? Since the Qur'an includes a few passages mandating special privileges for the Prophet, one wonders how that would have worked out. It's clear that there are strong ideals of equality (for male Islamic believers) in the Qur'an; but isn't Islam frequently cited to justify the tribal divisions and the status distinctions that still exist in the Muslim world?

There were occasions where he was accused of things by his companions and he told them to come and take their justice from him. There was also an example when Ali ibn Abu Talib, the 3rd Caliph and son in law of the Prophet was falsely accused of something and his accuser won in court. When he won he realized that the system really is protecting the people and admitted that he lied, exonerating Ali.

During the Middle Ages, dhimmi status under Muslim rule was generally a better deal than being a Jew or a Muslim under the rule of a Christian prince. But it wasn't freedom of religion as that is now understood. For instance, converting Muslims was strictly forbidden.

I disagree here, I don't think trying to convert Muslims is forbidden. Historically you're right though it was forbidden but I don't support the leadership of the Caliphs who said that.

You can't stop people from converting, it's simply an illogical act and unislamic. As far as I'm concerned, let Christians, Jews and other religions try and convert Muslims. If the Muslims convert it is their choice and I think such a thing would cause the Muslim world to get their act together and start adhering to Islam proper instead of many of the backwards ideas that many still hold

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

This is what I was talking about earlier. I agree with some of the things you mentioned, but there is no way you could possibly know that vicious people will stop being vicious when their complaints are removed.

That also doesn't bear out with my findings on human nature. In my experience, when one reason is removed, a vicious person will find another to commit atrocities.

I'm not justifying the behavior I already mentioned, some of which is contained in your observations. I'm just trying to keep this real and on an individual responsibility level instead of "us against them."

People who do bad things are responsible for what they do, irrespective of their race, citizenship, religion or philosophy.

The only real solution to human atrocities is installing non-coercive individual rights as a moral and legal underpinning of law.

Michael

I agree 100% Michael, but these ideas are impossible to introduce while the Middle East is occupied by Western forces.. Would you peacefully accept to study ideas about communism if the Chinese invaded or attacked the US?

[Selene]

And yet.. Within the West Islam is one of the fastest growing religions with the majority of those who do convert to it being women.. They must really be a bunch of gluttons for punishment eh?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7nXmsBlaFj8

This is happening in every community in America. The representation that is being made is that 1, 500, 000 Americans have reverted [converted] to Islam since 9/11.

This is the website represents that this is to counter all the "negative propaganda" "spread by the media" and "...to educate people about Islam and the Muslim World." [Why the capital on world?].

http://www.turntoislam.com/

"The hatred some people might show towards Islam and the ill-practices of some Muslims should not hinder a Person from seeking the truth!"

Adam

I think this could be a very fruitful conversation

Edited January 4, 2010 by Selene

[Libertarian Muslim]

And yet.. Within the West Islam is one of the fastest growing religions with the majority of those who do convert to it being women.. They must really be a bunch of gluttons for punishment eh?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7nXmsBlaFj8

This is happening in every community in America. The representation that is being made is that 1, 500, 000 Americans have reverted [converted] to Islam since 9/11.

This is the website represents that this is to counter all the "negative propaganda" "spread by the media" and "...to educate people about Islam and the Muslim World." [Why the capital on world?].

http://www.turntoislam.com/

"The hatred some people might show towards Islam and the ill-practices of some Muslims should not hinder a Person from seeking the truth!"

Adam

I think this could be a very fruitful conversation

Actually, I think that they mean that of the 6 million Muslims in America, more than 1,500,000 of them are reverts to Islam. Isn't that it? If it was 1.5 million converts since 9/11 I think that there would be a really huge outcry.

It is true, people coming to Islam in droves, even when the example of it portrayed in the Middle East and other places is horrible. Most people decide to want to study about it for themselves and once they see that it's not the way then they see the real message that it contains and revert.

I wasn't raised Muslim but as a Christian and even the Muslims in my life and family weren't the best example of Islam. Yet I myself became Muslim at the age of 16, only a few months before 9/11.

I think a good discussion about Islam can be found with Sayyed Hassan Al Qazwini, the head Imam of the Islamic Centre of America www.icofa.com, the largest Mosque in the USA located in Dearborn, Michigan. He's an amazing guy. Here's what I found:

After all of my travels in the Middle East, I have no doubt that the Muslims that I have encountered in the West are far better than any Muslim I met in the Middle East. I believe that it's the freedom that we have here to make our own decisions that really allows us choose and shine. This is another reason why I believe that Islam and Libertarianism mix so well with each other.

Because what good is not drinking alcohol if you don't have the chance to do so? What good is praying when religious police force you to do so? Surely there is no blessing in anything that involves compulsion.

There is a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him that states, that that the Final Hour would not come until the sun will rose from the west instead of from the east, and that this would cause everyone to believe in Islam.

Amongst it's quite literal meaning which of course is also entirely possible (if you believe the 2012 movie). I and many others also believe that this means that Islam itself will rise within the West and become not only followed by many in the West, but that in the West, you would find that the best examples of Islam.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[jeffrey smith]

Adonis--

First off, let me add my welcome here.

For clarity's sake I'm not an Objectivist, although I am a libertarian; I am also a Jew, and unlike Ayn Rand and others, I remain a practicing Jew.

There is of course a good deal in common between Judaism and Islam; many Jewish concepts translate fairly squarely into Muslim concepts (Moses/Muhammed;Torah/Quran;halacha/shariah, etc.) And it seems that Allah quoted the Talmudic Rabbis when it suited Him--if you have the chance, compare the quotation you posted earlier today from the Quran, regarding the high value of human life, with a passage in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin Chapter 4), where the same thought is expressed in similar terms (in the Mishnah, based on the fact that Adam was created as the apex of creation and therefore the universe, it is thus taught that a human life is equal to the universe). The Mishnaic text would have dated no later than the last quarter of the second century CE.

Therefore when you defend certain parts of shariah, I understand where you are coming from. In Judaism, women can not initiate a divorce and can not be witnesses in a legal case; Jews litigating against other Jews in non Jewish courts is frowned upon; adulterers should be put to death, and so should men who have homosexual sex. But I suspect that Islam developed safeguards in the matter of capital crimes similar to those developed by the Rabbis: witnesses who not only see the act but also warn the criminal in advance that he is violating the Torah and might suffer the death penalty, and hear him acknowledge he had heard their warning, understood that he is courting the death penalty, and intends to continue with his action anyway. In fact, Islam went beyond Judaism in at least one detail: we require only two witnesses, compared to the four witnesses required by shariah.

But being so close, Jews and Muslims are also rather far apart. The Palestinian issue is of course the most important contemporary event. There are two things that Muslims don't seem to properly understand in trying to deal with this issue: 1)that Jews don't see themselves as denying Arab claims to a place in Eretz Israel, but see Arabs as denying their own claims to live peacefully there. They perceive a majority of Palestinians in favor not of a land where Jews and Arabs live as equals, nor even in favor of a land where Jews live as second class citizens in a land dominated by Arabs, but in favor of a land where only Arabs live and Jews are only a memory. (And if the majority is not in favor of this, then they seem to have no interest in stopping the Arabs who do want such a Judenrein land.) For years they saw "moderate" Palestinians at best try to excuse, and often try to justify, suicide bombers who attacked buses and pizza parlors, and grew to suspect that "moderate" Palestinians were not much different from extremists. And they see Muslims routinely cite such things as the massacre of that Medinan tribe you discussed earlier today as the proper way to treat Jews--and don't see any Muslims with the courage to stand up and say "no!" to that. So many of them are now in the position that, since the Palestinians don't seem to want to live in peace with them, why should they try to bother to live in peace with the Palestinians. 2)Jews are Palestinians; we were exiled by the Romans (truly an evil empire in terms of using force to impose their will and plunder their colonies),but that does not mean we are strangers to the land (just as Palestinians who live in other parts of the world would consider it ridiculous to say they are not Palestinians). But we see the Arab side not only denying this, but trying to destroy the evidence of this (for instance, the activities of the Waqf in charge of the Dome of the Rock in the last few years, aimed at demolishing the underground chambers and other artefacts beneath the Dome which were originally part of the Second Temple.) For Israelis, it is not they who are committing genocidal acts, but the Palestinians who are seeking to commit genocide on the Jews of Israel.

(As a side point, you might want to check out the predicament of the Christian Palestinians who still live in the Holy Land, who are being driven out not by Israeli actions but by hostility from their Muslim fell ow Palestinians.)

I suspect on this point at least we may have to adopt the policy of two of my fellow students when I was in college. One was a Jew from New York; the other was a Palestinian (his father was a doctor for the WHO based in Damascus). Both were premed students. They roomed together for two years, by choice. They had one ironclad rule: never discuss the Mideast

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis--

First off, let me add my welcome here.

For clarity's sake I'm not an Objectivist, although I am a libertarian; I am also a Jew, and unlike Ayn Rand and others, I remain a practicing Jew.

Shalom Alechem then Jeffrey, it is always lovely to hear from a practicing Jew.

There is of course a good deal in common between Judaism and Islam; many Jewish concepts translate fairly squarely into Muslim concepts (Moses/Muhammed;Torah/Quran;halacha/shariah, etc.) And it seems that Allah quoted the Talmudic Rabbis when it suited Him--if you have the chance, compare the quotation you posted earlier today from the Quran, regarding the high value of human life, with a passage in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin Chapter 4), where the same thought is expressed in similar terms (in the Mishnah, based on the fact that Adam was created as the apex of creation and therefore the universe, it is thus taught that a human life is equal to the universe). The Mishnaic text would have dated no later than the last quarter of the second century CE.

Yes, there is a great deal in common between Islam and Judaism, we all come from the same root of monotheism and worship the same G-d.

Therefore when you defend certain parts of shariah, I understand where you are coming from. In Judaism, women can not initiate a divorce and can not be witnesses in a legal case; Jews litigating against other Jews in non Jewish courts is frowned upon; adulterers should be put to death, and so should men who have homosexual sex. But I suspect that Islam developed safeguards in the matter of capital crimes similar to those developed by the Rabbis: witnesses who not only see the act but also warn the criminal in advance that he is violating the Torah and might suffer the death penalty, and hear him acknowledge he had heard their warning, understood that he is courting the death penalty, and intends to continue with his action anyway. In fact, Islam went beyond Judaism in at least one detail: we require only two witnesses, compared to the four witnesses required by shariah.

That is correct, never are such punishments delivered after just one instance, the guilty party is usually warned time and time again until it has been ascertained that nothing else will swerve this person from these actions, except of course, in the case of something like rape or murder.

But being so close, Jews and Muslims are also rather far apart. The Palestinian issue is of course the most important contemporary event. There are two things that Muslims don't seem to properly understand in trying to deal with this issue:

You know Jeffrey, I really do not believe that we are far apart in terms of religion. I think the matter of Israel is, as a whole an issue not to do with religion in so much as it has to with race. As I'm sure you're aware, prior to the creation of Israel, there were no real problems between Arabs and Jews, they went to the same markets, the same doctors, babysat each others children etc.

1)that Jews don't see themselves as denying Arab claims to a place in Eretz Israel, but see Arabs as denying their own claims to live peacefully there. They perceive a majority of Palestinians in favor not of a land where Jews and Arabs live as equals, nor even in favor of a land where Jews live as second class citizens in a land dominated by Arabs, but in favor of a land where only Arabs live and Jews are only a memory. (And if the majority is not in favor of this, then they seem to have no interest in stopping the Arabs who do want such a Judenrein land.) For years they saw "moderate" Palestinians at best try to excuse, and often try to justify, suicide bombers who attacked buses and pizza parlors, and grew to suspect that "moderate" Palestinians were not much different from extremists. And they see Muslims routinely cite such things as the massacre of that Medinan tribe you discussed earlier today as the proper way to treat Jews--and don't see any Muslims with the courage to stand up and say "no!" to that. So many of them are now in the position that, since the Palestinians don't seem to want to live in peace with them, why should they try to bother to live in peace with the Palestinians.

Jews are Palestinians; we were exiled by the Romans (truly an evil empire in terms of using force to impose their will and plunder their colonies),but that does not mean we are strangers to the land (just as Palestinians who live in other parts of the world would consider it ridiculous to say they are not Palestinians). But we see the Arab side not only denying this, but trying to destroy the evidence of this (for instance, the activities of the Waqf in charge of the Dome of the Rock in the last few years, aimed at demolishing the underground chambers and other artefacts beneath the Dome which were originally part of the Second Temple.) For Israelis, it is not they who are committing genocidal acts, but the Palestinians who are seeking to commit genocide on the Jews of Israel.

Palestinians are Arabs, Jews are a Jews. The Arabs descend from The Prophet Ishmael and the Jews descend from the Prophet Isaac, peace be upon them both.

Yes both groups certainly have lived side by side in peace for the majority of history. But they are two different ethnic groups.

Yes I agree that the Roman empire (evil as you say) exiled the Jews without just cause.

Allow me to say this, I do not believe that suicide bombing is accepted in Islam. Firstly because you are taking your own life and in Islam we don't believe we have the right to do this, if we are to be blessed with martyrdom let God bless us with it, it is not something we can simply take.

Secondly, as I mentioned previously, I am totally against the harming of non combatants and Islam forbids this.

Palestinians as a whole have no problem with Jews being in Palestine and welcomed the Jews, they did and still do however have a problem with Zionism which was a secular belief promoted by non practicing Jews. But what gave Zionists a right to create a state in a land where there were already people? Their race? That is racial supremacy to believe that simply because of your race or religion, you have the right to enter a land and expel the inhabitants who'd lived there for the same amount of time that the Jews did. To say that the Zionists had more right to it than the Palestinians is racism and this is why I am completely against Zionism.

As I'll remind you, the Palestinians and Jews did live in peace together prior to Israel's creation, but the creation of the Zionist state changed that.

In 1948 the UN Partition plan was a travesty and so unjust.

It gave the Arabs 46% of the lands in Palestine, The Arabs at that time were 69% of the population and owned 92% of the land. The UN also gave the Zionists, 56% of the land when they were 31% of the population and owned less than 8% of the land.

The Zionists were also given, the most fertile and best lands in that deal. I might also add, that up until the beginning of World War 2, the 'Jews' made up but a small amount of the population in Palestine with the overwhelming majority being Arab.

I really suggest you watch the following documentary called Occupation 101 and take a look at the history of it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589&ei=WWFBS-KhM5_-qAO77LzmDg&q=occupation+101&hl=en&view=3&client=safari

The Palestinians didn't deserve any of this.

The major problem is the Zionist settlers, they are messing any peace process up. They are trying to make the Palestinians leave and here's just one example of the treatment Palestinians go through from them.

(As a side point, you might want to check out the predicament of the Christian Palestinians who still live in the Holy Land, who are being driven out not by Israeli actions but by hostility from their Muslim fell ow Palestinians.)

Hmmm well actually, I might disagree with that, it's rare that I've seen Palestinian Muslims attacking Palestinian Christians and in fact the Palestinian resistance has been joined by Christians, George Habash, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is just one example. I have also seen examples of Israelis attacking Christian places of worship.

If you also view that Occupation 101 documentary you'll see more of that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... but these ideas are impossible to introduce while the Middle East is occupied by Western forces.

Adonis,

Impossible?

Do you really believe that?

How about reversing it? How does this sound?

It will impossible to convince the West to remove its troops in the Middle East until there are no more terrorist organizations. So give up the terror, and then it will be possible for people to think about this. So long as there are terrorist organization, Western people will not think about new policies.

Isn't that what you are saying on the other end? Until the troops are withdrawn, Middle Eastern Muslim people will not think about new ideas.

I don't believe that. I don't believe you do either. Not really.

In fact, my research bears out the contrary. People on both sides are thinking, slowly granted, but it is growing...

I have a general strategy on dealing with hostilities (both foreign and internal, and both here and over there).

Meet force with force. Meet ideas with ideas.

Is that difficult in today's world?

Yes.

Is it impossible?

No, it is not impossible. So I disagree with you.

And I note, you, yourself, are here discussing ideas (although I recognize that Turkey and Australia are not exactly the Middle East)...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just for the record, I understand a Zionist to be a supporter of an Israeli country.

Nothing more.

I used to think Zionism was like fanatical fundamentalism until I looked it up. While there are no doubt such fanatics among Zionists, not all Zionists are. Not even the majority. In fact, from what I have read, the vast majority of Zionists are not fanatics.

To promote the idea that all Zionists are fanatics or master race believers, etc., is to make the same mistake others make when they characterize all Muslims as Islamist fundamentalists.

It is necessary to make correct identifications, otherwise nothing rational can be achieved. So long as incorrect identifications are insisted upon, the standard is the tribe, not the human mind and spirit.

I intensely dislike oversimplification and I am an outright enemy of scapegoating.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

... but these ideas are impossible to introduce while the Middle East is occupied by Western forces.

Adonis,

Impossible?

Do you really believe that?

How about reversing it? How does this sound?

It will impossible to convince the West to remove its troops in the Middle East until there are no more terrorist organizations. So give up the terror, and then it will be possible for people to think about this. So long as there are terrorist organization, Western people will not think about new policies.

Isn't that what you are saying on the other end? Until the troops are withdrawn, Middle Eastern Muslim people will not think about new ideas.

I don't believe that. I don't believe you do either. Not really.

In fact, my research bears out the contrary. People on both sides are thinking, slowly granted, but it is growing...

I have a general strategy on dealing with hostilities (both foreign and internal, and both here and over there).

Meet force with force. Meet ideas with ideas.

Is that difficult in today's world?

Yes.

Is it impossible?

No, it is not impossible. So I disagree with you.

And I note, you, yourself, are here discussing ideas (although I recognize that Turkey and Australia are not exactly the Middle East)...

Michael

Sorry Michael, I thought my example would have shown that I meant that the people wouldn't be likely to take ideas of liberty and freedom from people occupying their land, they can't see from the example then.

Not that it is impossible as a whole.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Just for the record, I understand a Zionist to be a supporter of an Israeli country.

Nothing more.

I used to think Zionism was like fanatical fundamentalism until I looked it up. While there are no doubt such fanatics among Zionists, not all Zionists are. Not even the majority. In fact, from what I have read, the vast majority of Zionists are not fanatics.

To promote the idea that all Zionists are fanatics or master race believers, etc., is to make the same mistake others make when they characterize all Muslims as Islamist fundamentalists.

It is necessary to make correct identifications, otherwise nothing rational can be achieved. So long as incorrect identifications are insisted upon, the standard is the tribe, not the human mind and spirit.

I intensely dislike oversimplification and I am an outright enemy of scapegoating.

Michael

A Definition of Zionism:

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

I can match you tit for tat on videos. You should see the stuff that is broadcast on Palestinian TV, for instance. I can provide links if you like.

But I see little value in this.

Actually, the only value I see in a video showdown of who is the more unjust is to show that there are people on both sides of the divide who act like jerks.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

I can match you tit for tat on videos. You should see the stuff that is broadcast on Palestinian TV, for instance. I can provide links if you like.

But I see little value in this.

Actually, the only value I see in a video showdown of who is the more unjust is to show that there are people on both sides of the divide who act like jerks.

Michael

Michael I don't like what is on Palestinian TV either.

But I think that the Occupation 101 documentary is not just a tit for tat video. If you haven't watched it then I suggest you do. It wasn't made by the Palestinians.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A Definition of Zionism:

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

http://www.jewishvir...sm/zionism.html

Adonis,

Correct. And in continuing on that same page in the Jewish Virtual Library, there is a section entitled: Zionism Is Not Racism.

The Jewish Virtual Library is one of my sources for studying Jewish matters. I am pleased to see you take recourse to it, also.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Hi Michael, I wonder if we could perhaps move the Occupation talk to another thread so not to hijack this one. I fear if this becomes a big discussion it'll detract from your original intentions.

[Selene]

Hi Michael, I wonder if we could perhaps move the Occupation talk to another thread so not to hijack this one. I fear if this becomes a big discussion it'll detract from your original intentions.

It is a regular occurrence here in my two (2) years

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael I don't like what is on Palestinian TV either.

But I think that the Occupation 101 documentary is not just a tit for tat video. If you haven't watched it then I suggest you do. It wasn't made by the Palestinians.

Adonis,

I just found the link (sorry if I missed it above, these discussions are being squeezed in between other things and I end up skimming some stuff out of lack of time). Here it is (once again if I missed it, and for the first time if I did not) for those interested:

Occupation 101 (Google video)

Occupation 101 (Official site)

Occupation 101 (Wikipedia)

As this is an hour and a half, I cannot see it now. But I will over the next couple of days. I looked at the first couple of minutes and it does look interesting.

btw - One other source I have read (but not completed, I am ashamed to say since this was a gift from a person I love) is The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. Here are some links:

The Case for Israel (Amazon)

Alan Dershowitz (Wikipedia)

Apparently it is now a documentary, but I haven't seen it yet:

The Case For Israel (official site for film)

EDIT: Since the link was open on my browser tabs, I will add it. Here is a preview on Google Books: The Case for Israel.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hi Michael, I wonder if we could perhaps move the Occupation talk to another thread so not to hijack this one. I fear if this becomes a big discussion it'll detract from your original intentions.

Adonis,

I agree. I will leave these posts as they are, though.

EDIT: It is done. People can find it here: The Israeli-Palestinian issue

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Yes, I am justifying the stoning of adulterers in some circumstances because I believe that public adultery is a crime against your partner and against society. I don't however, believe it's a one size fits all punishment and believe that the way it is practiced in countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran and other places is completely incorrect.

Yes, they should of course correctly stone adulterers.

No further comment necessary, I think.

DF, you’ve got a beer buddy across the Atlantic who’s sampling some fresh crow.

[Ruth]

Adonis,

I can match you tit for tat on videos. You should see the stuff that is broadcast on Palestinian TV, for instance. I can provide links if you like.

But I see little value in this.

Actually, the only value I see in a video showdown of who is the more unjust is to show that there are people on both sides of the divide who act like jerks.

Michael

The problem is fundamentalism - whether that be Islamic fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, or Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are not our allies and we should not pretend that they are somehow 'liberal'.

It is most unfortunate that Adonis has had such an abusive welcome to NZ and to Libertarianz. In my view anyone who comes with peaceful intent and does not burden the taxpayer is welcome in this country.

It is also worth noting that US interests here have not been threatened by Muslims or 'Islamists' over the last few years - in fact the threats and security alerts come from the redneck demographic who fantasise about assassinating Obama....

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, I am justifying the stoning of adulterers in some circumstances because I believe that public adultery is a crime against your partner and against society. I don't however, believe it's a one size fits all punishment and believe that the way it is practiced in countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran and other places is completely incorrect.

Yes, they should of course correctly stone adulterers.

No further comment necessary, I think.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

--Brant

Edited January 4, 2010 by Brant Gaede