Obama endorses the Ground Zero mosque

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is some more official Objectivism for those of that bent. (I am not.)

Yaron Brook is basically saying that individual rights do not apply to Muslims in the USA right now because we are at war with Islamists and Islam is part of that.

Sorry, I cannot embed the video.

Deroy Murdock, No War on Islamists and the Wisdom of Building a Mosque Near Ground Zero

The program is Front Page with Allen Barton.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

If you agree that the people complaining about the mosque have the right to free speech (and I know you do), yet don't believe that it should "take half the population of the US to figure that out on national TV," you actually start to see why it is necessary to include all of human nature in enforcing rights, not just try to mold human nature to them.

The truth is it won't work in some contexts. That's because rights come from and pertain to human beings, not the other way around. (I know you know that, but here is a case where there is a different nuance to think about.)

Just in the present case, it's easy to speculate how people can be really mean and deadly, both by stealth and by lynch mob, and still stay within their rights (that is, until things go boom).

Just saying one side or the other has rights does not stop the disaster from happening when they get that way. You have to step back and find a way to put order in the henhouse, otherwise you are going to get a free-for-all, not a civilized society.

I think part of the challenge of intellectual warfare is in persuading people to be cautious about acting rashly and/or allowing others to act without due examination (depending on the case) when warning signs arise.

I do know that this issue has all the characteristics of a powder keg right now and it could blow up on either side.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Subject: Brief Responses to Adonis

> We don't do marches just for show to please non-Muslims and to reassure them that we're not all terrorists nor are we the supporters of terrorists. [Adonis]

That wouldn't be the purpose.

Then what would the purpose be? It's a public display designed to gain attention.. If we're dealing with this in house there is no need for such a thing.

> it'd also be dismissed by most as doing it for the benefit of non-Muslims and as being insincere

If you are correct, that would be a deep pathology within the Muslim community.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was referring to the non-Muslim community viewing it as for their benefit and as being insincere.

> We don't have the same opinions and understanding as you do about Shariah

I'm perfectly willing to change the word to whatever term you chose to signify the more extreme forms.

Islam is more complex than you've taken the time to try and understand, the divisions and differences of opinion take years to understand, but you don't even seem to be trying to make the least bit of effort to learn about what these labels are.

> we believe that when you publicize your good deeds, you lose the blessings from God

Makes no sense.

Perhaps to you it doesn't, but again.. You're not a Muslim and haven't spent time studying about it.. We believe that if you do a good deed in public to gain the praise and attention of others, that you are not going to get as many blessings from God for it, rather you're publicizing of your good deeds may even bring to question for what reason you did those deeds.. Was it so people can say 'look at that man, he donated so much money' and they will love you for it, or do you do it so you can help people?

> those cartoons? They were very offensive to us.

Actually, they weren't objectively very offensive but comparatively mild. You see a lot worse in any political campaign. Parody and cartoons are a valid tradition and one has to develop a thicker skin.

Excuse me Philip, but if you think you can speak for people as to what should be offensive to them and what shouldn't be then you're not thinking straight.. Being offended is subjective.. I find certain things offensive when they attack something that I have emotional investment or devotion towards, so if someone insults it.. I will be offended.. That doesn't mean that you should feel offended by those insults if you don't have the same investment or devotion to that particular thing.. Similarly, you can't tell me what I can and can't be offended by..

> we believe in freedom of speech and won't stop you from printing them

Even if there were a tiny, tiny minority threatening or trying to kill the cartoonists and the reprinters, was there a movement among the majority of Muslims to say "you shouldn't kill people or threaten their lives because they offend you" and "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me"?

Did I miss that grass roots movement in the Islamic countries and in the West to defend civil liberties and freedom of speech?

Yes, there was a huge movement amongst Muslims condemning the threats, attacks and riots.. No, we're not happy about the cartoons, but violence isn't the way to deal with this. Most Muslims that did demonstrate, demonstrated peacefully. Yes there are extremists who got a lot of attention who even burned down the embassy in Lebanon but to be frank, these groups represent such a minute amount of the 1.5 billion strong Muslim community in the world.

> What you want, is for Muslims to feel humiliated.

How is it "humiliating" to stand up publicly, to march for, to organize for, to be unafraid about the fight for human rights. Which are threatened all across the world, not just in many Islamic countries. I would think it would be the opposite: a badge of pride, an emblem of honor, an anthem of self-esteem!

That's not what I was referring to and that is very clear as the comment was under the quote of you saying that Muslims should reprint those offensive cartoons.. Everyone should stand up for justice and human rights, in fact it's in the Qur'an as an obligation of Muslims..

> You want to subjugate us and you want us to feel inferior to yourself.

??? What you are leading me to suspect is that this was the answer when called upon to defend civil liberties and oppose the extreme forms of Shariah, etc.

Again, this comment was under yours asking Muslims to reprint the cartoons.. You seem to either not understand that or are attempting to misconstrue what I've said.

> You're just like a Wahhabi.

Adonis, I've been reading your posts -- and have been willing to engage you -- because you often reason calmly and have stood up to ad hominems and tried to be calmly logical in places like SoloP, but when you in turn descend to exaggeration and insult, you lower yourself.

Oh no, you are like a Wahhabi.. They too expect non Muslims to subjugate themselves... Even to wear particular clothes and 'acknowledge' that their religious beliefs are inferior to Islam.. If you're asking me to reprint those cartoons you're asking me to do the same thing..

And I did call those on SoloP Wahhabis too..

Anti-Islam sentiment fanning the flames of extreme Islam:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38795716/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times

Hypocrisy has consequences.

That was a point I made before too.. There are extremists out there that push the idea that the US is at war with Islam, and that this is the reason for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan..

If this mosque were banned or attacked, extremists would use this as a rallying cry and tool to recruit people who would otherwise not join them..

I believe that this will still be beneficial for the US.. The mosque will be built and it will prove that the US has religious freedoms..

[Darrell Hougen]

I debated whether to respond to your comment or not. In reality, it doesn't deserve a response. However, I am disappointed that others are taking your comments seriously when they should not be. Therefore, I feel compelled to make clear the nature of your insulting comments.

The problem with discussing things with you is that you argue dishonestly.

You're the one being dishonest -- with that very statement. I am making a certain inference in good faith.

That is a complete inversion of what actually transpired on this thread. I posted a few observations and you responded with insults.

Generally, I attempt to give a writer the benefit of the doubt, to interpret their comments rather generously, to assume the best about what that person actually meant. From the beginning, you have done exactly the opposite, purposefully imputing to my comments positions that I did not intend and, in fact, did not state. That is not valid inference. That is wild, mean-spirited extrapolation. Therefore, I will go through the rest of this post and point out all of the places in which your statements are untrue and often insulting.

You on the other hand are being emotionalist because I express what I infer from your statements and you don't like it.

That is untrue and an insult. I base my conclusions on reason and you have no evidence that I do not. Your "inference" is a wild extrapolation.

If you were being honest, you'd ask how I made the inference, not leap to the conclusion that I'm dishonest. Note the similarity to the other pattern, your "trick" I referenced above. It comes from precisely the same mental dishonesty on your part. And note that you failed to answer me.

More baseless insults. I was joking when I said I had a lot of other tricks because I couldn't think of any better response to your insulting statement that I was employing a trick.

I know you *say* you adhere to reason. Follow through please.

Another insult.

I implied that we live in the freest country in the world. Would you dispute that?

I think the assessment of whether we are the freest or not is more complicated than you think it is. I personally find it preferable to live among domesticated farm animals than among those who are unsuccessfully rebelling and being slaughtered for it. But you confuse the fact that we are domesticated with actual civility. To wit, I point to the vile violence inherent in the US, if we do not do as we are told we will be murdered, our bodies riddled with bullets and burned, and you dismiss it as if it is unimportant. You are domesticated and do not know it.

Another insult. You may believe the situation in the U.S. is far worse than I do, but that doesn't make me domesticated. What would have me do, get a gun an start shooting politicians? A rational choice by a human being to work for change within the system does not equal being a domesticated animal.

The fact that this government is headed in the wrong direction and has been for a long time, through multiple presidencies does not imply that we have yet slipped behind other countries. Does that mean that I am happy with our government or the direction it is going? Absolutely not. Quit trying to erect a straw man in place of what I actually said just so you can defeat it. We should basically be on the same side and should be having a much more nuanced discussion about the differences in our views. Instead, you treat me as if I were some sort of Communist or something.

No, you are a domesticated farm animal, and so am I, the only difference is that know what I am. I try to behave myself, to bow down and pay my taxes and follow the laws, and exercise the one right left that is (hopefully) relatively safe to exercise: free speech. But I agree with Ayn Rand on that point.

You don't acknowledge how similar we are. Do you think I like paying taxes or that I believe it to be right or just that I am forced to do so against my will? But, my accession or your accession to the necessity of paying taxes doesn't make either of us animals.

I agree that it is hard to be self-righteous when there are so many things wrong with us

Another difference between us is that you are a collectivist,

Untrue and insulting. I am not a collectivist.

and that is why you find it hard to be self righteous. You are a good little citizen and identify yourself with the State.

Untrue and insulting.

I on the other hand only see individuals.

We are the same in that regard.

I see my values and principles, and I see what others do, and I condemn that part which is evil.

Again, we are the same.

You see nation versions nation.

I compare the governments of countries in order to see which is doing the best job of defending freedom and individual rights.

You are a nationalist.

Untrue and insulting. If you're going to make such comments, at least provide some evidence to support your wild extrapolations.

You are a collectivist.

The same insult again.

Not on purpose, not as a conscious principle -- explicitly you hate collectivism -- but by default. You haven't learned to be an individualist yet. I encourage you to learn.

More insults. You don't know what is in my mind.

--- with our country. But, I still draw a sharp distinction between a country in which individual rights have been protected well enough to generate an ever improving standard of living and a country that would have nothing if it were not for oil.

I think the topic of the Middle East is far more complicated and sinister than you imagine and it is too complicated for me to want to bother with here.

Another insult. You don't know what I imagine.

This conversation got off to a bad start and that was partly my fault, although it was mostly your fault. I posted a number of points and you responded by insulting me. Then, I gave tit-for-tat and it went down hill from there.

If you want to have a less acrimonious discussion in the future, I would suggest that you stick to debating the subject, instead of making comments about the person you are debating. Don't tell me that I am a nationalist or a collectivist or don't know what I'm talking about or am irrational. Don't tell me what I think or what I know or what I imagine. In short, please treat the person you are debating with respect.

Darrell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Darrell,

Shayne is a good dude. (But we have clashed ourselves, so I am not saying that as bias. He really is one of the good guys and I like him.)

He has a really good independent mind. Piss-poor people skills, though.

And, believe it or not, he is now far more adept at people skills than he used to be.

(Don't even ask...)

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Adonis,

Also, to expect Muslims to be openly against Shariah is to then also assume that all Muslims also have the same interpretation of Shariah as you do which is a very poor assumption that ignorant people (like yourself) make. We don't have the same opinions and understanding as you do about Shariah because the majority of Muslims that know anything about Shariah understand that the way that you interpret it is in fact incorrect and unislamic.

Far from assuming that all Muslims interpret shari'a as Phil understands it, I wouldn't for a minute assume that 1 billion plus Muslims who are old enough and well enough educated to be able to understand these kinds of issues would interpret shari'a the same way.

But, trying to make sense of your remark, I've concluded that it's surfing on top of some subtexts:

(1) A non-Muslim could not have any idea what shari'a consists of.

(2) A Muslim who does not know anything about shari'a couldn't either. (What percentage of Muslims, in your opinion, don't know their rear end from their elbow where shari'a is concerned?)

(3) Further, it is not necessary to specify what those Muslims who really do understand shari'a think it is.

(4) The possibility that any real Muslim (well, let's say, any Muslim who is not a member of the Taliban or the Sa'udi royal house, or a follower of Osama bin Laden) might subscribe to an "incorrect and unIslamic" interpretation of shari'a is not to be dwelt on.

You frequently speak as though all of the world's Muslims are one big corporate "we"—but how many Muslims actually subscribe to your preferred interpretation of the Qur'an and of Islamic law?

Robert Campbell

PS. I've asked a couple of times for your opinions of four ahadith on the subject of homosexuality, which I posted on February 28, 2010. Two are quoted here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8058&view=findpost&p=92083

and two more here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8058&view=findpost&p=92104\

Stating your views on these would help the rest of us understand what you think shari'a is—and what you think it isn't.

[Robert Campbell]

And why on earth would you ever assume that any right minded Muslim would reprint those cartoons? They were very offensive to us. Yes, we believe in freedom of speech and won't stop you from printing them, but we won't humiliate ourselves by reprinting them..

Adonis,

You're using that big corporate "we" again. The 12 Danish cartoons are offensive to all of "us." All of "us" would regard reprinting the cartoons as humiliating. Nonetheless, "we" all believe in freedom of speech. And so on.

Could the point of reprinting the 12 Danish cartoons just be to distinguish yourself and those who think as you do from those Muslims who believe themselves entitled to kill anyone who portrays the Prophet Muhammad in a negative light?

By the way, do you believe that any picture or drawing of Muhammad is sacrilegious?

Obviously, one could be mightily offended by a cartoon of Muhammad wearing a turban with a bomb in it, and still consider a portrait of Muhammad that presents him positively to be OK.

But most media coverage of the reaction to the Danish cartoons included the assertion that in Islam any picture of the Prophet is forbidden.

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

Darrell, I didn't say what I said because I thought it'd be fun to insult you. I said it because I thought it was true and important. We can discuss whether it is or not, or who is right about what perspective. I won't defang my evaluations in order to tip-toe around your feelings, but if I'm wrong I'll change my views. That you take insult at this or that is not relevant.

Shayne

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell, I didn't say what I said because I thought it'd be fun to insult you. I said it because I thought it was true and important. We can discuss whether it is or not, or who is right about what perspective. I won't defang my evaluations in order to tip-toe around your feelings, but if I'm wrong I'll change my views. That you take insult at this or that is not relevant.

Shayne

This isn't about my feelings. It is about having a civil discourse. Calling me names or the equivalent, pasting labels on me with no justification, doesn't contribute to a civil discourse.

Darrell

[sjw]

Al Jazeera:

[sjw]

Calling me names or the equivalent, pasting labels on me with no justification, doesn't contribute to a civil discourse.

But I didn't paste labels on you without justification. I would agree in principle that if I had, then that wouldn't contribute to the discourse.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's the Atlas Shrugs post of today. It will probably become a media bombshell for a while:

ATLAS EXCLUSIVE! GROUND ZERO MOSQUE IMAM FEISAL'S EXTREMISM EXPOSED: IN HIS OWN WORDS: "the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida," Elimination of Israel, the N-Word, "Fahrenheit 911"

It is quite a long piece, biased but properly documented. I recommend reading it, if for nothing else, then for looking at Pamela Geller's facts.

Here is the video:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awISCKJzVtE?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awISCKJzVtE?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awISCKJzVtE?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Geller gives the transcript on her site, but here is one part she underlined in red:

We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US led sanction against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children.

There are also a couple of videos of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, whom Rauf admires and considers to be "a very very well known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world" (that quote is from the video).

This is one of the videos from the jurist Rauf admires so much. The Islamic jurist, Al-Qaradawi, claims that Hitler was divine punishment for the corruption of the Jews. And goes much further

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Here is the transcript of that video (there is a stamp that appears after a fade-out/fade-in at about 40' saying "Al Jazeera TV (Qatar) January 28, 2009").

Throughout all history, Allah has imposed upon the (Jews) people who would punish them for their corruption.

The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them.

Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers.

. . .

To conclude my speech, I'd like to say that the only thing I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews. (applause)

This is a warning sign.

And on a side note, people like Al-Qaradawi (and possibly Rauf, since he admires this creep so much), have it backwards. Hitler was not an instrument of Allah. Al-Qaradawi and people who follow him are instruments of Hitler, dragging Islam through the muck of Nazism, even to the point of openly preaching murder.

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

Geller gives the transcript on her site, but here is one part she underlined in red:

We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US led sanction against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children.

There are also a couple of videos of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, whom Rauf admires and considers to be "a very very well known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world" (that quote is from the video).

Thanks for posting the link. I cringe when I read things such as the quoted paragraph. Rauf and others are simply taking leftist propaganda and using it against us. The original leftist attack ignores the culpability of Saddam Hussein in his own subjects deaths. It ignores the Oil for Food program and the Oil for Corruption scandal at the U.N. whereby Hussein ignored his people's need for food and bought weapons and favors from Europeans and others in exchange for the oil that he was supposed to be using to buy food. Now, Rauf and others are using the clearly false rhetoric to claim moral superiority or at least moral equivalency.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Calling me names or the equivalent, pasting labels on me with no justification, doesn't contribute to a civil discourse.

But I didn't paste labels on you without justification. I would agree in principle that if I had, then that wouldn't contribute to the discourse.

Shayne

If you have reasons for disagreeing with me, then you should make those reasons and the associated evidence explicit. Then we can have a conversation. I won't respond to a bunch of frivolous, unsupported accusations by any means other than to say, "false, false, false, false, etc."

Darrell

[sjw]

Now, Rauf and others are using the clearly false rhetoric to claim moral superiority or at least moral equivalency.

I think people who use the term "moral equivalency" are by definition nationalists. They implicitly disregard any proof of the impropriety of the actions of their side on the grounds that they are the "good guys" and the other side is the "bad guys", instead of taking each action on either side and judging it in context.

That is the difference between you and I Darrell. You are obsessed with defending your nation as a whole; I am interested in judging each act of each individual in context. Undoubtedly a person so concerned would be called "leftist" by you.

It's not that I'm opposed in principle to judging the actions and then rolling them up into an overall appraisal. Indeed, given where I choose to live, I have made such an appraisal already. It's that you want to bypass that rigor and skip to the overall appraisal and then fully back your side regardless of the specific sins it commits, you aren't interested in the crimes that those you choose to designate "good guys" have committed.

In other words, I am in principle opposed to crime as such, whereas you are only opposed to your side losing. It's like a football game, only on a larger scale.

Shayne

[sjw]

If you have reasons for disagreeing with me, then you should make those reasons and the associated evidence explicit. Then we can have a conversation. I won't respond to a bunch of frivolous, unsupported accusations by any means other than to say, "false, false, false, false, etc."

Darrell

Now you're blaming me for your inability to read. Look, if I say something, and then you don't get how a conclusion of mine follows from the premises, that's the time to ask, not many posts later, and further muddied and obscured as a weird meta-level discussion. Don't accuse me of disrupting the discourse, you're the one on an insane tangent.

Shayne

[sjw]

Anti-Islam primer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w

[Libertarian Muslim]

Here's the Atlas Shrugs post of today. It will probably become a media bombshell for a while:

ATLAS EXCLUSIVE! GROUND ZERO MOSQUE IMAM FEISAL'S EXTREMISM EXPOSED: IN HIS OWN WORDS: "the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida," Elimination of Israel, the N-Word, "Fahrenheit 911"

It is quite a long piece, biased but properly documented. I recommend reading it, if for nothing else, then for looking at Pamela Geller's facts.

Here is the video:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awISCKJzVtE?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awISCKJzVtE?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awISCKJzVtE?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Geller gives the transcript on her site, but here is one part she underlined in red:

We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US led sanction against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children.

There are also a couple of videos of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, whom Rauf admires and considers to be "a very very well known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world" (that quote is from the video).

This is one of the videos from the jurist Rauf admires so much. The Islamic jurist, Al-Qaradawi, claims that Hitler was divine punishment for the corruption of the Jews. And goes much further

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Here is the transcript of that video (there is a stamp that appears after a fade-out/fade-in at about 40' saying "Al Jazeera TV (Qatar) January 28, 2009").

Throughout all history, Allah has imposed upon the (Jews) people who would punish them for their corruption.

The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them.

Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers.

. . .

To conclude my speech, I'd like to say that the only thing I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews. (applause)

This is a warning sign.

And on a side note, people like Al-Qaradawi (and possibly Rauf, since he admires this creep so much), have it backwards. Hitler was not an instrument of Allah. Al-Qaradawi and people who follow him are instruments of Hitler, dragging Islam through the muck of Nazism, even to the point of openly preaching murder.

Michael

1. The US DOES have more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has non Muslim blood, there is no doubt about that.

2. The issue about virgins is silly. He stated that you get whatever you want in Heaven.. Sex isn't considered a sin in Islam and is a good thing so why shouldn't you be able to have it in heaven? Although why any woman would want 1000 male virgins would astound me? They'd have to all be naturals I'm assuming.

3. He said the N word yes, but he was using it as an example of how skin color becomes divisive in communities.. You heard it clearly yourself.. I'm not sure how that can be taken as derogatory?

4. Regarding the Madrid and London bombings.. I, and many other people including many non Muslim Americans believe that those attacks, as well as 9/11 were false flag operations by elements of the CIA and their creation Al Qaeda to justify war and the big profits it produces for the international bankers, pharmaceutical companies and military industrial complex and to justify removing more and more liberties from the people. I'm not sure if that's what Imam Feisal Rauf believes..

5. Islam doesn't need reformation.. Muslims do yes, but Islam doesn't.

I guess the important thing to do is actually go forth and read the full transcript rather than just the bits that have been taken out to get the full context..

Also, regarding Qaradawi, he was not giving unfettered support to him. In fact I believe that Qaradawi and Abdul Rauf disagree on a great number of issues.. Sure they agree on some and whilst I don't agree with everything Qaradawi says, I do agree with some, even though it's very little.

[sjw]

Adonis, I have a few questions for you. First, why are you here, what is your interest in Objectivism and why do you care what Objectivists (a tiny socially irrelevant minority) think? Second, why are you a Muslim, what are the key values in Islam that are important to you?

Shayne

[sjw]

Anti-Islam primer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w

I think the most disturbing thing about this video is the "Al-Taqiyya". However, that is just a formalization of what every religious person already does. It is also something deeply entrenched in our own legal system, which is not based on truth or rights, but on the nightmare that is legal positivism. Lawyers lie all the time, encourage their clients to do the same, much to the detriment of innocent victims. The horror of systematic lying is all around us but few notice, while at the same time being shocked that it is an official part of Islam.

Shayne

[Robert Campbell]

Shayne,

The author of this primer hasn't read the Qur'an himself.

Or, if he has, he has chosen to misrepresent it to an audience that he is confident won't be reading it.

For instance, the Qur'an contains passages supporting the doctrine of abrogation, but the text does not specify which passages are to prevail in case of conflict. In partiuclar, the text of the Qur'an does not specify when the various suras (chapters) were composed, and the suras are not presented in anything like their chronological order.

Nor does the Qur'an lay out a system of shari'a. The Qur'an supplies detailed rules about some issues (e.g., how to divide an inheritance) and vague instructions or none at all about many others (for instance, it isn't too clear about the penalty for committing murder). That's why ahadith were collected and different schools of Islamic jurisprudence developed over time.

And taqiyya is a Shi'a doctrine of sharply limited application. Lying to advance an agenda is what most politicians do, regardless of race, color, or creed. There is nothing specially Islamic about it.

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis, I have a few questions for you. First, why are you here, what is your interest in Objectivism and why do you care what Objectivists (a tiny socially irrelevant minority) think? Second, why are you a Muslim, what are the key values in Islam that are important to you?

Shayne

Hi Shayne,

I didn't come here initially as a person that was interested in objectivism, rather I came here after I was invited to this forum after I wrote on the SOLOP website responding to Lindsay Perigo's savagery towards Muslims and I've kind of been here ever since and intend to stay so long as I can be of benefit. I have found Objectivism to be quite interesting and it's also just as interesting to see the diverse opinions amongst Objectivists.

Now for your question, why am I Muslim?

That's a good question..

I'm a Muslim because I believe that after reading the Qur'an, that it is the literal word of God passed down through the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. I came to Islam through firstly reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X and then through further study until I believed it was correct.

What key values in Islam are important to me? I really consider Islam's staunch position on justice and the obligation of Muslims to stand up for it no matter what the circumstances are, or who is involved to be vitally important to me. That is perhaps the most important to me.

I think the most disturbing thing about this video is the "Al-Taqiyya". However, that is just a formalization of what every religious person already does. It is also something deeply entrenched in our own legal system, which is not based on truth or rights, but on the nightmare that is legal positivism. Lawyers lie all the time, encourage their clients to do the same, much to the detriment of innocent victims. The horror of systematic lying is all around us but few notice, while at the same time being shocked that it is an official part of Islam.

Shayne

Shayne, perhaps before just believing this video, you can also take a look at what Muslims believe Taqiyya is. It's nothing like is described there.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

[Robert Campbell]

I always recommend reading the full transcript of any speech or exchange.

It's vital to do so when some of the content appears to be incendiary.

Here's the whole thing:

http://www.unisa.edu..._transcript.asp

It has a few howlers (the transcriber had never heard of Chautauqua, for instance), but nothing that would significantly impede understanding.

Some of Ms. Geller's editing, both of the video and of the text, is way too abrupt for my taste. And I question her judgment on some issues, such as Abdul Rauf's use of the N-word, or his rather lame jokes about heaven (I see these as an effort to change the subject).

To her credit, she does append the entire text of the appearance at the end of her post.

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

Shayne,

The author of this primer hasn't read the Qur'an himself.

Or, if he has, he has chosen to misrepresent it to an audience that he is confident won't be reading it.

For instance, the Qur'an contains passages supporting the doctrine of abrogation, but the text does not specify which passages are to prevail in case of conflict. Specifically, the text of the Qur'an does not specify when the various suras (chapters) were composed, and the suras are not presented in anything like their chronological order.

Nor does the Qur'an lay out a system of shari'a. The Qur'an supplies detailed rules about some issues (e.g., how to divide an inheritance) and vague instructions or none at all about many others (for instance, it isn't too clear about the penalty for committing murder). That's why ahadith were collected and different schools of Islamic jurisprudence developed over time.

And taqiyya is a Shi'a doctrine of sharply limited application. Lying to advance an agenda is what most politicians do, regardless of race, color, or creed. There is nothing specially Islamic about it.

Robert Campbell

You're correct, the issue of abrogation is more complex than is being let on. The way that the Qur'an was collated and compiled as a book was not the way it was intended.. Instead of it being put together in a specific order, the compilers simply put them in order of largest to smallest which was certainly a very devious thing to do.

However, it is possible, with the right studies to go through and find which verses were revealed at what time and the context which they were revealed. A really good version of the Qur'an I like does this well. It is called The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an: Explanatory Translation. By Pickthall. This is an excellent one because it explains the context and time that they were revealed as well as any other issues which is very handy.

Also, I just found a nice little book on the Qur'an on a website that you may find interesting and helpful. It's called An Introduction to the Glorious Qur'an. I didn't get a chance to read through it in depth but so far it looks okay.

Also, in terms of Taqiyya Robert.. The assertion about the 'Shia' is not quite so accurate.. The opinion of Taqiyya for both 'Shia' and 'Sunni' is the same, it's just that a lot of the Salafis, Wahhabis and some of the more hardcore 'Sunnis' tend to try and discredit 'Shia' by asserting that 'Shia' lie about the tenets of their faith which is in fact not true.

[sjw]

I'm a Muslim because I believe that after reading the Qur'an, that it is the literal word of God passed down through the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. I came to Islam through firstly reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X and then through further study until I believed it was correct.

Why did you conclude that it was the literal word of God?

Shayne, perhaps before just believing this video, you can also take a look at what Muslims believe Taqiyya is. It's nothing like is described there.

I don't just believe the video.

I take it you believe there is a lot of misrepresentation of Muslims. Why do you suppose that is? If you are right, the Muslims as a group seem to be getting singled out and persecuted. Why?

Shayne