Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mosque

[Mike11]

Philip, I went to the opposite extreme yes. He was saying that there is some uniform thing called Sharia, which is untrue to the best of my knowledge. When a women gets stoned to death for being raped, that's Sharia. When she is set free and her rapist punished, that's Sharia.

I trolled to far, forgive me

[Philip Coates]

That's okay, Joel, I'll give you a papal dispensation.

"That's Sharia...that's Sharia.." Wasn't that a popular song from the fifties? Dean Martin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That%27s_Amore_%28song%29

[Robert Campbell]

Robert, it's not an inconsistency to oppose one historical war and be in favor of another. That's like noticing I like carrots but not sauerkraut, then applying a negative, disapproving label: "Phil Coates is inconsistent about vegetables."

Phil,

Rand's statements about one war—the Vietnam conflict—were inconsistent. Sometimes internally inconsistent within the same answer. This will all be available again soon, when the Rewrite Squad makes its reappearance.

What's more, the principles, expressed or implied, behind her statements about different wars were inconsistent. If she had applied the same criteria in the 1940s as she did in in the 1970s, she'd surely have been all out, well before Pearl Harbor, in favor of annihilating Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan, for the same reason that she wanted to nuke 'em all in Brezhnev's Soviet Union.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

What's more the Koran itself commands infidels be converted or die.

Blackhorse,

Unlike some proselytizers for Islam, I very much doubt that getting more non-Muslims to read the Qur'an will increase their sympathy with the religion or acceptance of its teachings.

Still, if you are going to criticize the Qur'an, you read it first.

Please supply sura and ayah—chapter and verse—for the commandment that all non-Muslims must convert or be slaughtered.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Objectivists have argued, properly, that if our government was bad, in the sense of being an aggressor in war, then we should be prepared to suffer the consequences when another country acts in self-defense.

Really? I don't recall any objectivist associated with ARI or TAS ever arguing such a thing. The argument always used by objectivists is that people living in other countries ruled by tyrannical governments are fair game as collateral damage should their governments be considered by the US government to pose a threat to us.

Martin,

When the Rewrite Squad returns to prime time, you'll be able to see how Ayn Rand occasionally qualified her "war guilt" answers by saying that Americans would be collectively guilty if the US government ever launched an aggressive war against another country.

But she qualified this by applying it only to other countries that were freer than the US (which in the 1970s would have been a very short list, from her standpoint). She regularly maintained that "slave pens" were fair game and could be invaded by the forces of any non "slave pen" country.

And she always presented the possibility as a hypothetical. She gave no instances of actual aggressive wars waged by the USA. I doubt she thought there had been any.

Robert Campbell

PS. If Amy Peikoff weren't Leonard's ex, would her arguments be taken seriously even amongst the most orthodox of ARIans? Her blog entry about the Cordoba House controversy refers to "Objectivists" as though only members of Leonard's personal entourage need apply.

[blackhorse]

Here is an excellent article about some of what the Koran says about infidels, Robert (with citations); http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/11/blogging-the-quran-sura-9-repentance-verses-1-5.html'>http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/11/blogging-the-quran-sura-9-repentance-verses-1-5.html

I highly recommend everyone subscribe to http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

blackhorse,

You left out Little Green Footballs and all the rest.

The best of the lot is Daniel Pipes.

At least he is not bloodthirsty, nor have I yet read that boneheaded convoluted stuff the others present at times that I consider bigotry (although it has been a while since I have read him)...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> Rand's statements about one war—the Vietnam conflict—were inconsistent. Sometimes internally inconsistent within the same answer. [Robert]

Not impossible, but I'd be surprised if it weren't a different aspect, context, or timeframe. If you can give clashing quotes (without saying go back and read an entire thread), then I'd like to see it.

While posters on this list often make illogical or ill-thought out or inconsistent remarks [not directed at you or any one poster], that's considerably rarer in Rand. Happens sometimes but not all that often.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

While posters on this list often make illogical or ill-thought out or inconsistent remarks...

Phil,

At least one poster I know of does when he starts preaching about what others should do...

You.

At least you are consistent in that.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Michael, every single poster on this list frequently 'preaches' or advocates what he would hope others would do. Yourself included.

Nothing wrong with that.

,,,,,

By the way, the word 'preaches' is slanted or loaded.

That's an illogical or at least illconsidered word use.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

What I mean by "preaching" is not promoting and/or discussing a view (or ideas) with the aim of encouraging people to use their own minds, but instead, promoting an ideological agenda that ultimately scapegoats people of good will and using intimidation as one major means of persuasion.

That's the meaning of preaching when I use the term.

In that sense, only a couple or three people are preaching on this thread. You are often one, but not always.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Here is an excellent article about some of what the Koran says about infidels, Robert (with citations); http://www.jihadwatc...verses-1-5.html

I highly recommend everyone subscribe to http://www.jihadwatch.org/

blackhorse,

Have you actually sat down and read all of sura 9?

It's nastily militant, by my reading, but taken as a whole it does not say (and, so far as I know, has not been taken historically to say) that all non-Muslims must either convert to Islam or be slaughtered.

It's not like the options that sura 9 lays out for the kuffaar are wonderful or anything, but there are others besides conversion and death.

If you've read sura 9, presumably you'll be able to tell the readers of this forum what the others are.

Robert Campbell

[jriggenbach]

Here is an excellent article about some of what the Koran says about infidels, Robert (with citations); http://www.jihadwatc...verses-1-5.html

I highly recommend everyone subscribe to http://www.jihadwatch.org/

blackhorse,

Have you actually sat down and read all of sura 9?

It's nastily militant, by my reading, but taken as a whole it does not say (and, so far as I know, has not been taken historically to say) that all non-Muslims must either convert to Islam or be slaughtered.

It's not like the options that sura 9 lays out for the kuffaar are wonderful or anything, but there are others besides conversion and death.

If you've read sura 9, presumably you'll be able to tell the readers of this forum what the others are.

Robert Campbell

Robert, you write as though you suspect that "blackhorse" (is anyone but me irritated by these asinine screen names?) hasn't actually read the material in question and doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm shocked - shocked! Still - assuming I've correctly understood what's between the lines of your post - I'm inclined to agree with you.

JR

[jriggenbach]

[T]he word "preaches" is slanted or loaded.

That's an illogical or at least illconsidered word use.

Why did I know that E. B. White would rear his ugly head before this thread was completed? I wonder what White would have had to say about Ayn Rand's "slanted" and "loaded" use of language? Something, I'm sure, that would have inspired and edified every single one of us.

JR

[9thdoctor]

Robert, you write as though you suspect that "blackhorse" hasn't actually read the material in question and doesn't know what he's talking about.

I’d say it’s a fair reading of the evidence.

(is anyone but me irritated by these asinine screen names?)

Apparently he uses his real name on OO, either that or someone on OO is plagiarizing his posts 10 minutes before they’re made here (with a TARDIS it can be done). If I were to start from scratch, with a new screen name, I think I’d pick E.B.White.

[Rich Engle]

Actually, real "preaching" is the antithesis of MSK's description, and I think he will know what I mean by saying so. He used to call it (more aptly, I believe) "proclaiming." This is something a hardened Randian understands.

Real "preaching" is hard to come by, but you know it when you see it. Matter of fact, I just saw two of them yesterday, during a thing celebrating the 20th of the National Disabilities Act. Poetry and truth in motion, with tight, structured ideas. More about improving the human condition than criticizing what hasn't been done to-date.

But anyway...

There are all different kinds of "agendas" available, but to me the finest one of all is the agenda attempting to not have an agenda, if you will; at least not one that comes off as overt, limited, and riding with the implied insistence that if you are not agreeing with it, you are either very stupid, or morally wrong, or both.

There is no fucking way on the face of the earth that any person who has earned their salt is going to put up with another starting out an oration about something by, either subtly, or overtly, working of the assumption that the person they are addressing is less somehow, and therefore needs their "fixing." It is intellectually insulting, and basically just rude. Worse yet, so-doing only creates awareness of such states, except for the unfortunate matter that the audience won't be seeing it in terms of themself, but in you. People are, generally, pretty perceptive like that, whether they can define it in words, or not.

I think they used to call that "tone," but I might be incorrect.

rde

Edited July 20, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Philip Coates]

I knew E.B. White. E.B. White was a friend of mine.

And, Jeffaroni, you're no E.B. White.

[blackhorse]

I am not here to attack anyone. I am merely stating the very real and present danger of islam. I think Peikoff is very much aware of this threat as well as numerous other Oist scholars. Does anyone here actually believe that a muslim state will allow individual freedom? There are more than plenty of muslim countries and so far their record is '0'. Does anyone really think that this will change? You cannot influence islam with ideas of reason and liberty because Allah and islam are the only ideas muslims will obey.

[blackhorse]

I find the personal attacks against people here rather rude. I have personally offended no one and yet I seem to be the focus of 5th grade name calling and rudeness.

[9thdoctor]

You cannot influence islam with ideas of reason and liberty because Allah and islam are the only ideas muslims will obey.

Try seeking out a sympathetic source for the study of Islam. There are threads on this site with links. While you’re at it, study the doctrine and history of Judaism and Christianity, then compare and contrast.

Best I can tell, you’re just parroting bigots.

I find the personal attacks against people here rather rude. I have personally offended no one and yet I seem to be the focus of 5th grade name calling and rudeness.

What personal attacks? What names have you been called?

[Rich Engle]

He's worried about whether or not someone called him a poo-poo head, in between promoting genocide as a solution to apply on other people who are promoting genocide.

Compare. Contrast. Run.

rde

Edited July 20, 2010 by Rich Engle

[blackhorse]

I find the apologetics posted here for islam very confusing.

[Brant Gaede]

I find the personal attacks against people here rather rude. I have personally offended no one and yet I seem to be the focus of 5th grade name calling and rudeness.

You've done nothing but offend me. Every post, every word and every punctuation point.

--Brant

[blackhorse]

Ok Rich, what would have been your solution to Nazi Germany?

Brant, if my posts offend you then so be it, what I find disturbing is when adults choose to respond like smart ass teenagers instead of addressing one another with at least a modicum of decorum. I don't have all the answers - I am trying to explain the very real danger of an islamist world. The libertarian mantra of live and let live can only be of practical value if both sides can respect mans right to live his own life. Where are the muslims reaching out for individualism and reason? 1% is not enough.

I have never advocated killing all muslims - I have advocated dropping MOPS on islamist hot spots and sending in elite military sniper units to despose of fanatic islamists who make fatwa's and organize murder. I have stated that islam and liberty are at odds and must forever be. Context matters. I am trying to be objective about what I perceive is a very real and dangerous threat.

Edited July 20, 2010 by blackhorse

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

blackhorse,

The only person on OL offering "apologetics" for Islam is Adonis, but he is a practicing Muslim and it would be odd if he did not offer such "apologetics."

He is also a libertarian and is engaged in spreading libertarian ideas within the Muslim community. That means, by extension, undermining the violent Islamist fanatics, whom Adonis has told me do not represent his religion.

Is that a good thing to you, or do you prefer bombing innocents because you wish to emulate Peikoff (& Co.) at his worst?

In fact, who do you think will make an intellectual impact on any part of the Muslim world in the sense of promoting individual rights and freedom, Leonard Peikoff or Adonis Vlahos?

My money is on Adonis and I will give you any odds.

As for your "apologetics," I don't see anyone on this site converting to Islam, yet I do see a Muslim promoting individualism--among Muslims. And Adonis is not seeking converts here.

All he wants is freedom of religion to be something more than a slogan. (A position I fully endorse.) He may push the envelope a bit at times, but so do others to him. Hell, even I have done it. That's the nature of difficult issues that involve strong passions. But we have done something here on OL that people of your persuasion claim is impossible: we are having intelligent civil dialog with a practicing Muslim who wants freedom.

Think about it. Think about it really deeply. I mean it.

There are over a billion and a half Muslims in the world. Do you have any notion what that means? The entire population of the USA is a little over 300 million. Which one-size-fits-all solution do you intend to effect with a group that is 5 times larger than all Americans combined?

Even Daniel Pipes claims that there is a wide gulf between normal average Muslims and the Islamist fanatics. There is no need to lump them all together. Get to know a few Muslims if you don't believe me. Your average moderate Muslim is a good person who takes living according to his best thinking seriously. Get away from the fanatics (especially some really vicious strains of Sunni and Shi'ite where there are Nazi leftovers) and you will find that Muslims are lovely people. The ones I have known are. I know that for a fact.

You sound like a good dude with a good mind. Step back--just for a moment--from the bigoted people you have been listening to and try to look at what is going on here with unbiased eyes.

Isn't spreading freedom and individual rights among Muslims a good thing? I certainly think so.

Well, it's not only doable, it's being done.

Without bombs.

Let the military do their job when people vastly more qualified than you or I decide deployment is needed. Our job is intellectual. Our job is about ideas. And the ideas end where a bomb begins.

You will never get the guilty (other than one or two here and there) by killing the innocent. All you will really do is create bitter enemies out of people who were not enemies.

Michael