Islam

[dan2100]

Michael" You give off the general impression that you don't want people like Adonis to succeed in that mission, and it comes off as hatred as an end in itself."

I'm not responsible for your impressions. They have no connection to my posts. If you and Adonis decided to invent a new religion, at least have a decency not to call it "Islam". The copyrights for this name is reserved to Mohammed who created religion based on brute force, hatred and racism.

I'm unaware of the racist basis of Islam. Would you clarify this please?

[Leonid]

See Que'an 2:96

[dan2100]

See Que'an 2:96

Would you elaborate on this, please?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not responsible for your impressions. They have no connection to my posts.

Leonid,

What in hell are you talking about?

You certainly are responsible for the message you communicate. And if you do so incompetently or with dishonest guile, you certainly are responsible for that. Just as if you are clear in your message, you are responsible for that, too.

What a cop out of a standard!

Why bother posting if you are not interested in communicating?

Michael

[Leonid]

I'm not responsible for your impressions. They have no connection to my posts.

Leonid,

What in hell are you talking about?

You certainly are responsible for the message you communicate. And if you do so incompetently or with dishonest guile, you certainly are responsible for that. Just as if you are clear in your message, you are responsible for that, too.

What a cop out of a standard!

Why bother posting if you are not interested in communicating?

Michael

I'm not responsible for the fact that impressions and feelings are your only epistimic tools and the smearing of character is your only line of argument. In all your numerous posts you have failed to present one single fact to substantiate your claims. I cannot argue with emotionalist. To the subject-matter: religion which had been begotten by sword is sustained by sword, that is-by political force of state. Islam is already divorced from state-in the West. However I cannot see how it could be done in Islamic countries where Islam is the only justification of brutal tyranical regimes.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

Michael" You give off the general impression that you don't want people like Adonis to succeed in that mission, and it comes off as hatred as an end in itself."

I'm not responsible for your impressions. They have no connection to my posts. If you and Adonis decided to invent a new religion, at least have a decency not to call it "Islam". The copyrights for this name is reserved to Mohammed who created religion based on brute force, hatred and racism.

I'm unaware of the racist basis of Islam. Would you clarify this please?

Are you familiar with the concept of "dhimmi"? If not, check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

Edited April 23, 2010 by Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not responsible for the fact that impressions and feelings are your only epistimic tools and the smearing of character is your only line of argument.

Leonid,

This is incorrect. I gave you a bunch of stuff to look at in the beginning and you refused to do so, merely repeating Objectivist bromides to cover a message of bigotry. Evasion, emotionalist, intrinsicist, yada yada yada. Even when it doesn't fit. This stuff is straight out of Peikoff's book.

However I cannot see how it could be done in Islamic countries where Islam is the only justification of brutal tyranical regimes.

Man, is that the truth.

The problem comes when you don't want to see how it can be done, nor do you want anyone to try.

You are not very good at convincing rational people of anything. But you are pretty good at singing justifications for bigotry to the bigotry choir.

I reject that.

I will repeat a fact you continuously refuse to acknowledge: over 1.5 billion peaceful Muslims in the world. They are a fact. There's a reason they are peaceful. That's a fact, too. Since that reason does not fit your bromides, you blank those peaceful Muslims--and any reason they might be peaceful other than, to you, they are hypocrites--out of your discourse.

It's just plain wrong to do that.

Michael

[Leonid]

Michael "you refused to do so, merely repeating Objectivist bromides to cover a message of bigotry. Evasion, emotionalist, intrinsicist, yada yada yada. Even when it doesn't fit. This stuff is straight out of Peikoff's book."

Sorry, my mistake. I thought that you are an Objectivist. In any case, in all your posts to me I couldn't find any substance except defamation of my character.

Michael "You are not very good at convincing rational people of anything."

Please speak only for yourself, otherwise some people may conclude that you are not rational.

Michael: "I will repeat a fact you continuously refuse to acknowledge: over 1.5 billion peaceful Muslims in the world. They are a fact. There's a reason they are peaceful."

This is undeniable fact which I myself stated times and again. However you should distinguish between Islam as state religion and Muslims. Most of Muslims in their private life are peaceful. The reason for that is that they don't implement the teaching of Islam in full. In order to live normal life they have to compromise, to make adjustments exactly as Christians and Jews do. They are not hypocrites, but in order to accomodate their cultural heritage, they have to live by mixed premises. But when Islam is supported by machinery of state, its nature comes out in full. And for proof just look on Islamic countries like Iran, or Saudi Arabia, where people forced to live as good Muslims.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sorry, my mistake. I thought that you are an Objectivist. In any case, in all your posts to me I couldn't find any substance except defamation of my character.

Leonid,

If you couldn't find substance, then I suggest you read a little more carefully, especially the earlier posts. I think you already know this, and that would reflect on your honesty right here, but I'll let it pass. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to poor memory and/or sloppy reading.

As to the Objectivist thing, I'm not sure, but I think we have a fundamental difference. I'm not part of any movement to save the world in the name of Rand. Objectivism for me is simply a body of ideas that I use as a starting point for my own independent thinking, since it has more fundamental components that I agree with than any other philosophy/religion. I use the label to identify where I am grounded, not as a badge of membership in any tribe or movement.

I'll leave the boneheaded stuff about me and what I should do that followed in your post alone. However, there is a part I agree with.

Most of Muslims in their private life are peaceful.

We agree on that. But then you come out with this:

The reason for that is that they don't implement the teaching of Islam in full.

This is bull.

You give collective religion the place where the individual exists. This is collectivist thinking applied to human nature. The truth is that most Muslims are peaceful because they choose to be peaceful. They have good character as individuals because they choose to have good character. Just like the thugs choose to have bad character.

Their holy books and holy men do not create this choice. The religious authorities may groom how that choice is implemented after it is made, and the nastier ones can even repress good Muslims, but they do not make that choice for the individuals (except for some uneducated--or emotionally unstable or insecure--people the Islamist thugs manage to brainwash into becoming suicide bombers and active agents).

I agree that peaceful Muslims will ultimately have to accommodate concepts like separation of church and state, individual rights, checks-and-balances, etc., within their religion, just like Christian and Jews do. In order to keep up with the rest of the world, they need to become less tribal, more focused on freedom and allow their market to flourish under capitalism. But peaceful people are peaceful by individual choice, not by religion or compromising their religion.

We certainly have power mongers and dictators and murderers within Christian and Jewish societies. Especially here in America. Take a look at a paraphrase of your words below and see if this is not the truth for how Americans can be seen right now:

In order to live normal life they [Americans] have to compromise, to make adjustments exactly as all other countries do. They are not hypocrites, but in order to accomodate their cultural heritage, they have to live by mixed premises. But when mixed economy is supported by machinery of state, its nature comes out in full. And for proof just look on European countries like England, or France, or even America, where people forced to live as good citizens.

There is a difference, though. Since we in America have our freedoms written into law and have placed our power-holders into a system of checks and balances, we can change unfair things easier than they do in an Islamic country. Hell, easier than they do in a banana republic dictatorship. Injecting that kind of freedom thinking into the Islamic mainstream should be the intellectual battle, not trying to tell a Muslim how evil his religion is.

Who do you think you are convincing when you say things like that? When that's mostly what you harp on, and you harp on and on and on about how evil Islam is, you come off as a bigot. Call it smear or whatever you will, but that is the message your words convey. It's a strong message, too. As I don't want my forum to be a soapbox for hate speech, I call you on it, just as surely as I call the Israel-bashers on their hate-speech.

(You probably even missed where I managed to pull out of Adonis that he agrees that Israel needs to be recognized as a legitimate and sovereign country by the Muslim world. It was grudging and basically under protest, but it came out. That's a hell of a lot more than you did attacking him through his religion.)

The fact is that people choose to be bullies and tyrants and murderers in all cultures. The thugs in the Islamic world use the holy books and religion as an excuse for their power-lust and brutality. Islam does not create bullies and tyrants and murderers. Those people become that way because they, as individuals, choose to become that way.

In fact, not only thugs use Islam to justify themselves, but peaceful Muslims (let's say well over a billion and a half peaceful Muslims) use their religion to back up their choice to be peaceful. Get it? Peaceful Muslims justify themselves with Islam, which you keep harping on and on is the very Satan on earth.

I have no problem criticizing Islam as a religion, just like I have no problem criticizing any other religion. And Islam does have some specific characteristics that should be discussed critically. But the truth is that the thugs and fanatics need to be bashed, not the very ideas a peaceful man uses to justify his peace.

Only after that premise is established will it become useful to discuss the parts in the respective religions that lead to crowd control. Without that premise, all you get is tribes and bickering and bigotry.

Michael

[Leonid]

Religion as comprehensive view on existence without any doubt has an influence on the formation of person’s character, especially if religious teaching has been applied in the early stage of person’s development. However there is always room for independent thinking. Religion as a delusion which is based on mystic-collectivist premises, presupposes total submission to Deity and self-sacrifice. Therefore full practice of religion is incompatible with life. No sound self-respecting person can do so. That why religious fundamentalists who are ready to die in the name of Deity are tiny minority. Most of the Muslims are peaceful because they love life and enjoy it. They accept and practice these parts of Qur’an which don’t interfere with their life and actually enhance it and reject all others. Christians and Jews do exactly the same. This is not hypocrisy but simply a mechanism of self-preservation in the face of the need to accommodate religion as part of cultural heritage. State religion, however, doesn’t have this kind of reservations. In the name of Deity it could sacrifice millions upon millions of believers, not to mention infidels. Today the only well-established state religion is Islam. The Umma‘s aspirations are to enhance Muslim regimes which are not religious enough, or not militant enough or both. If you were reading “Crescent” magazine you would know that the main struggle of Umma is not against America or Israel, but against this kind of Muslim governments (like Egypt, Syria, Iraq and surprisingly Saudi Arabia.) The role models are Iran, Hamas and Hisbulla.

There are no ways to change this trend by peaceful means. Christianity and Judaism lost their connection with state by means of force-Judaism lost its statehood as result of Roman occupation of Judea and Christianity as result of French and American revolutions which themselves were end product of long process of philosophical development . I cannot see how it could be done in regard to Islam in our times without major violence.

I already mentioned before that one cannot defeat religionist by means of rational argument, that would be contradiction in terms. So, in my opinion there is no need to fight or even to criticize Islam. However it is important to know and to understand the roots of violence begotten by Islam in order to fight agressive state supported Islamists. Pay attention: Islamists, not Islam-there are two different concepts.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

See Que'an 2:96

Would you elaborate on this, please?

Prophet rebukes Jews because they love life too much

[Leonid]

Michael "(You probably even missed where I managed to pull out of Adonis that he agrees that Israel needs to be recognized as a legitimate and sovereign country by the Muslim world. It was grudging and basically under protest, but it came out."

This is just great. On behalf of people of Israel and Jewish Diaspora: thank you so much. Just remember that some other honourable Islamist with noble intentions did the same thing. His name was Yassir Arafat, the former head of PLO. However I just thinking: if such a noble person as Adonis recognized right of Jews to live in their own state grudgingly and under protest, what less noble and honourable Islamist could say or do?

Edited April 25, 2010 by Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I cannot see how it could be done in regard to Islam in our times without major violence.

I already mentioned before that one cannot defeat religionist by means of rational argument, that would be contradiction in terms.

Leonid,

In other words, an intellectual battle for you only means demonizing Islam enough that your side will feel OK about killing and maiming those who adhere to Islam. With major violence at that.

Notice that you do not say, "those who attack us." Or "those who want to conquer us." Or "those who initiate force against us." You say "major violence" "in regard to Islam." Those are your words.

You give lip service to the distinction between Islamism and Islam as if this is something new all of a sudden (ignoring how oodles of people, myself included, have discussed this right here on OL oodles of times), but you demonize Islam over and over, thus include peaceful Muslims in your umbrella of hatred. I believe you know it and do it on purpose. You practice the very things you criticize.

As your sarcasm in the previous post shows, you are not interested in intellectual battles. Only in demonizing Islam enough to incite violence.

I call that bigotry. That is not a smear. It is an identification based on your own words and attitudes.

Take your hate-mongering elsewhere. You are not moderated or anything, but I really do wish you would leave.

This is a site for intellectuals, not hate-mongers or bigots.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

See Que'an 2:96

Would you elaborate on this, please?

Prophet rebukes Jews because they love life too much

Right on! You will never see a Muslim raise his glass and say L'chayim!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

This is not a good time for your crap...

Michael

[Leonid]

Michael” In other words, an intellectual battle for you only means demonizing Islam enough that your side will feel OK about killing and maiming those who adhere to Islam. With major violence at that. Notice that you do not say, "those who attack us." Or "those who want to conquer us." Or "those who initiate force against us." You say "major violence" "in regard to Islam." Those are your words."

As usual you misunderstood and misrepresented my position. You simply ignored my explicit statement: "I already mentioned before that one cannot defeat religionist by means of rational argument, that would be contradiction in terms. So, in my opinion there is no need to fight or even to criticize Islam.". In regard to major violence I was talking about separation of religion and state, not Islam as such. In the course of human history such a separation always was a result of major violence-for example French revolution. Consider also the current situation in Iran. Major violence wasn't result of Zionist invasion but ample expression of the deep dissatisfaction of Iranian people with theocratic regime.

It would serve you well if you will make fewer assumptions based on your prejudice, read my and other people's posts in stead to skim and skip them and stretch your creativity beyond the limits of character's assault in order to conduct meaningful argument.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As usual you misunderstood and misrepresented my position. You simply ignored my explicit statement: "I already mentioned before that one cannot defeat religionist by means of rational argument, that would be contradiction in terms. So, in my opinion there is no need to fight or even to criticize Islam.".

Leonid,

Really?

I ignored that?

Actually, my beef is that you say that, then go about fighting and criticizing Islam all the time. All anyone has to do is go back a ways and start reading your posts.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say I did ignore that statement. I don't know why you are bothered. This is the exact methodology you used on calling Adonis all kinds of names. (And calling people you disagree with your litany of Objectivist bromides.) Adonis said he condemns Islamist terrorism, etc., etc., etc., and you totally ignored it, except for the times you essentially called him a liar. I said I got him to state that Israel should be a sovereign nation and you, ignoring that, called him Arafat (a terrorist). I could go on and on.

Your standard is really subjective: if you ignore what someone says then call him out on something in harsh terms, it's rational; if others do it, it's "making assumptions based on prejudice."

Yeah, right.

But it gets worse. It would have helped if I had actually ignored what you wrote.

So I still smell bigotry. And it stinks.

Michael

[Leonid]

Michael:” But, for the sake of argument, let's say I did ignore that statement. I don't know why you are bothered. This is the exact methodology you used on calling Adonis all kinds of names. (And calling people you disagree with your litany of Objectivist bromides.) Adonis said he condemns Islamist terrorism, etc., etc., etc., and you totally ignored it, except for the times you essentially called him a liar. I said I got him to state that Israel should be a sovereign nation and you, ignoring that, called him Arafat (a terrorist). I could go on and on."

Michael, there’s no use. You are biased through and through and this is pity because it completely clouds your mind, prevents you to see reality as it is, causes you to make unwarranted statements, makes you obsessed with cheap psychologizing and stop you from discussion of the subject matter. You clearly need epistemic help.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, there’s no use. You are biased through and through...

Correct.

I dislike bigots and hypocritical rationalizations more than just about anything.

Michael

[Leonid]

Michael, there’s no use. You are biased through and through...

Correct.

I dislike bigots and hypocritical rationalizations more than just about anything.

Michael

Me too. At least on this we have no argument.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Leonid

[Libertarian Muslim]

Right on! You will never see a Muslim raise his glass and say L'chayim!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Because we aren't allowed to drink alcohol?

[BaalChatzaf]

Right on! You will never see a Muslim raise his glass and say L'chayim!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Because we aren't allowed to drink alcohol?

I never said what was in the glass. How about plain old grape juice or even water?

And my remark still stands. Jews are very big on life. Extreme Muslims are not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Right on! You will never see a Muslim raise his glass and say L'chayim!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Because we aren't allowed to drink alcohol?

I never said what was in the glass. How about plain old grape juice or even water?

And my remark still stands. Jews are very big on life. Extreme Muslims are not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Are "extreme" Jews?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Are "extreme" Jews?

--Brant

When was the last time Jewish fanatics committed suicide/homicide? Back about the time of Matzada, I think

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

Right on! You will never see a Muslim raise his glass and say L'chayim!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Because we aren't allowed to drink alcohol?

I never said what was in the glass. How about plain old grape juice or even water?

And my remark still stands. Jews are very big on life. Extreme Muslims are not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You also didn't say "Extreme Muslim" earlier and you haven't defined that.

I'd also like to know how many Muslims you observed for your opinion here. I find it hard to make such generalizations -- maybe because, unlike you, I simply haven't met many of the supposedly hundreds of millions of them on the planet. I've only met a handful -- at least, self-identified ones. And the ones I've met seem to range all over the place, from people who are fun to be on down to people who are not -- like the many non-Muslims I've met.

(The same applies to ten or twenty million Jews in the world. I've only met a handful of them -- again, self-indentified ones. Again, they seem to range all over the place.)