It can be true at the same time that Islam is not a religion of peace of George Bush’s claims, and not a real threat. It can be true Islam calls for uncalled-for violence, and that it is not Islam, or mainly Islam, that causes the vast majority of Muslim-perpatrated violence.
There’s probably a difference between saying Islam is pro-violence and therefore Muslims make especially good patsies and saying Islam makes Muslims violent. I mean, you can’t count on Catholics not to use contraception, so why should you be able to count on Muslims to be violent?
You’d think so wouldn’t you. Apparently that is lost on some people.
This isn’t a very PC thing to say, but I’m going to assert that that’s not a fair comparison, as it assumes all religious peoples are equally devout and pious.
The dogma outlined in the Catechism are lightyears apart from those commanded in the Qur’an.
The upbringing and lifestyle of a Catholic is incredibly different than that of a Muslim. The role the religion plays in his life is magnified many times over in the latter. The emphasis placed on strict adherence is many times greater, and the punishment for not abiding by the commands is equally greater.
Asserting that just because Catholics routinely disobey certain edicts of their church’s canon, Muslims would just as easily and be just as likely to disobey theirs is completely illogical and incredibly naive.
Not to mention, it’s not even a congruent analogy. The Catholic church has specific dictates on contraception. No one said anything about Islam “commanding” Muslims to be violent.
We’re anarchists here. Destruction of a state does not equal genocide.
And?
And was he saying that for effect, or in a way that made clear Hezbollah existed to fullfil this purpose?
Why don’t you educate us then? If our ignorance is so shocking it should only take a few links to show that is indeed the case.
They admit they support Hamas in its working for the Palestinian cause without acknowledging some of what Hamas does is terrorism in much the same way Americans supported the United States in World War II without acknowledging some of what it did (to German cities) was terrorism. What isn’t clear about this?
I agree. I’m pointing out a tendency in people, I’m not saying it is equally strong across all cultures, regions and time periods. I would be confident, however, to relly on this tendency to spare the world of Islamic terrorism and the like if not for outside radicalization*.
*Which comes in the form of non-Muslim perpetrated aggression against Muslims, but also in the form of the West lending aid to Islamists by arming them, by doing their propagandazing for them, and ultimately by taking the side of Islamists in intra-Muslim conflicts and helping foist them to power.
Yes, yes it was poor language. There are specific dictates to do things we would characterize as unjustified force, for example imposing taxation (gasp!) on a subjugated enemy. There isn’t a general “go out there and perpetrate mayhem” commandement.
I’m hesitant to agree that the content of Islamic doctrine makes people especially good patsies. I mean, the FBI infiltrated right-wing Christian groups during the 1990’s (and I’m sure they’re doing it more than ever today) and those with a more conspiratorial bent (such as myself) are inclined to believe that they used some right-wing extremists as patsies in some of the high-profile “homegrown terrorism” events of the 90’s. It seems to me that generic religious fervor and a low intelligence are the magic combination that is being used in the identification and exploitation of patsies.
You mean kind of like the incredible fervor required to be a good muslim, and the ignorance that goes along with severe intellectual isolation and indoctrination prominant in arab countries?
You can conflate all you want, but terrorism and genocide have seperate definitions. Most terrorists aren’t bent on genocide (and those who are don’t use it as an instrument with which to inflict genocide anyway), so engaging in acts of terrorism can not be evidence of genocidal intent.
Saying it for shock effect, or alternatively for shock-comedy effect. Like something Zhirinovsky would say.
I don’t have time for books and videos right now, but I took a look at the article. Besides the quote you offered it has this on Hamas and/or Herzbollah:
His genocidal goals–to kill all Jews–were proven by two recent statements. He has warned the Arabs and Muslims to leave Haifa so that his rockets can kill only Jews. And he apologized for causing the deaths of three Israeli-Arabs in Nazareth, when a Katuysha struck that religiously mixed Israeli city. Hezbollah also worked hand-in-hand with Argentine neo-Nazis to blow up a Jewish community center, murdering dozens of Jews.
Fallacious, this proves nothing of the sort. Again, terrorism can be employed for purposes other than extermination and usually is.
How outrageous of me! Or maybe Palestinians can’t see how I can compare a henious state which engaged in forceful removal of Indians from their land with an organization working for the cause of anti-colonialism and national liberation?
Lol, what are you talking about? Americans rationalize dropping the atomic bomb annually. They’re perfectly fine with it. Besides, I’m sure there were Americans who knew of Dresden and Hiroshima when they actually happened. I did use the past tense didn’t I?
Look it isn’t relevant for my point what ever they do. They can sing marry songs about Hamas blowing up little children inside Israel or they can say they only support Hamas in as much as it struggles for the Palestinian cause, but not in its acts of terrorism or the work to impose an Islamic state. Either way it does not follow from that that they do it because Allah is down with blowing up little children. It can conceivably be an outcome of reluctance to aid to kaffir critique of fellow Muslims, or a romantic idea of Hamas as heroic freedom fighters (again sparked by identification with other Muslims and their causes) and resultant cognitive dissonance. But we already dealt with this, haven’t we.
The ideas held by individuals in society are obviously extremely important factors in determining the kind of social order that exists between such individuals. To put it frankly Islam has crap ideas for establishing peace and prosperity within an Islam-influenced society and also between an Islam-influenced society and non-Islam influenced societies. If you think these phrases are too abstract, try replacing ‘Islam’ with ‘socialism’ and try telling me it still doesn’t make sense to you.
Also, even the interventionist order of the modern world has some private property rights - but it’s a terrible situation compared to a less interventionist order. In the same way just because Islam has some notion of private property doesn’t mean it is libertarian in the slightest.
Also I would like to hear your opinion on one other matter. Is it permissible according to libertarian theory to evict a squatter from your property by shooting him in the head and carrying him off, if you have already exhausted all other options and it is clear there is no other way of ridding yourself of him? What light can answering this question shed on the matter of Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians seeing many of the latter are permanent trespassers, squatters on land their Palestinian owners were evicted from?
A head of a muslim terrorist organization saying he wants to kill all Jews simply for “comedic” affect. I honestly don’t know how to respond to that.
Too bad. Be sure to go through them. And look into what Mr. Yousef has to say.
Evidently you didn’t even have time to look at the article:
its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah: “If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” (NY Times, May 23, 2004, p. 15, section 2, column 1.) Nasrallah is one of the most admired men in the Muslim and Arab world today. Hitler made similar threats in Mein Kampf but they were largely ignored. Nasrallah has a reputation for keeping his promises.
I’m saying “I support the United States” is a much more ambiguous, and therefore much more difficult statement to make than stating support for an actual organization of an infinitely smaller number of members, and with an actual charter.
You made it sound like you were speaking of typical muslim terrorism.
Yeah I suppose we have. And it either means the entire basis of Clayton’s argument is faulty, or that Muslims (1) still consider those who directly defy their religion to be faithful followers of it and (2) do not mind that these people are distorting their faith and giving it a bad name…so much so that they will not even so much as denounce acts of outright violence against uninvolved parties. Including children.
And again, it doesn’t even have to be blowing up little children. The beating of wives is condoned and even more or less commanded, and is something the prophet did on more than one occasion.
Pressumably by showing that is not the case, by offering the context and showing why this would be out of character for Nasrallah. I have no idea what kind of a politican Nasrallah is, but I know there are politicians who will say outrageous things for its shock, or shock-comedy effect.
I mean what? I’m supposed to be horrified at this but I actually don’t know anything at all of the circumstances? Isn’t it only reasonable I reserve judgement until I know more?
Here is a Serbian politician, a leader of a party that had a paramilitary wing saying (sorry no subs) among other things his followers adopted a new method of butchering people, that they henceforth do it with a rusty spoon so that it is impossible to tell even with an autopsy if the victim died from being butchered or from tetanus. How is that for lurid? But does that really mean his paramilitaries walked around with a spoon tucked in their pantss?
I think there is an age old animosity between the west and the muslims. I also think that for a large part islamic culture is incompatible with western culture. As it can be very different. While other religions and groups of people are able to adapt to the western culture without much trouble. This also fuels a perceived threat that islam needs to be eradicated or it would eventually take over the west. There is a serious opinion that some people hold that muslim people would like to take over the world with islam. This is in contrast to judaism which does not want to take over the world with judaism. Other people instead just want to control the world for their personal interest. Obviously as israel exists amongst islamic nations and with its history being such that it is, that will lead to increases in animosity. I do think that the zionists have manipulated the west, people of all types to be more against islam because of isreal. However I do hold some reservations against islam and I do not support it. I do not support any religions for that matter and would like them to be peacefully eradicated from society.
But I do think that the way in which the wars use religious and cultural pretexts and humanitarianism as justification. Does not realy offer the real reason for going to war. On the troop level something like 77% of the military troops that invaded iraq in 2003 thought they were going because of 9/11. Due to the media and their information they thought that they were going to avenge 9/11. But in reality the military organisations just use the religious cultural pretexts for private interests. They practically manipulate the governments and its military to go do operations for private interests using religious and cultural bias and perceived threat propaganda.
I read “The Politically Incorrect guide to Islam” and it painted the whole thing ina negative light. I think it is a nasty evil excuse for a religion.
Yet the powers that be are using this as an excuse. Just because it is a patsy, doesnt mean they are sweetness and light. No excuse for invading their countries and extending Americal imperialism at their expense.
There are many videos of “Wafa Sultan” online also for further clarifications of the evils of Islam. Doesn’t mean that Mr Patel from the Tobacconist is evil though. Doesn’t mean we can cease to be decent and start vicimising them. Also doesn’t mean we have to change our laws to accommodate them.
takes a deep breath and let’s out a slow and melancholist sigh while his elbow that is perched on his chair’s arm rest moves it’s hand towards his face only to have his index finger meet his forehead with the other fingers creating a veil and his thumb to his cheekbone - a facepalm has been initiated
Islam is 100% VOLUNTARY. It means VOLUNTARY submission to god. Coercion doesn’t exist in Islam.
Only when Islam is applied in a statist context is it statist.
Islam NEVER promotes statism and only promotes aggression if you are attacked.
Islam advocates libertarianism and sound currency."
And yet you can’t name one Muslim anarchist.
And what happens if you convert from Islam to Christianity or to atheism? Or commit adultery or contradict the prophet/Quran?
That makes no sense whatsoever. And says nothing about Islam.
And yet all Muslim majority countries have states based on Islam.
And yet no Muslim majority country is libertarian or with sound currency.
I’m not up for Muslim/Arab hate, as all of it seems to be overwrought and politically convenient; not to mention not bearing out in most statistics and opinion polls of people in the mid east. But what you are saying is not even true. Not even people defending Islam would say any of these things.
* Islam is 100% VOLUNTARY. It means VOLUNTARY submission to god. Coercion doesn’t exist in Islam.
* Only when Islam is applied in a statist context is it statist.
* Islam NEVER promotes statism and only promotes aggression if you are attacked.
* Islam advocates libertarianism and sound currency.
So why all the bashing?
You remnd me of the lbertarian version of the hyper active 8 yr old boy who eats gogurt, the extreme yogurt - and talks about totally awesome and kool ninjaz.
And what happens if you convert from Islam to Christianity or to atheism? Or commit adultery or contradict the prophet/Quran?
Sin doesn’t exist in Islam. Getting killed for apostasy only happens when Islam is applied in a statist context.
That makes no sense whatsoever. And says nothing about Islam.
And yet all Muslim majority countries have states based on Islam.
And yet no Muslim majority country is libertarian or with sound currency.
No Islamic states exist today. Almost all Muslim countries are ruled by American puppets. Look up the Muslim World when it was ruled by Muslims. It was way more libertarian than the West.
I’m hesitant to say it is factual as stated there, since it seems to conflate religion with religionists. Religion is about customs, structures, belief codes, and the like, but the individuals are who have things like fascinations and ideological commitments. Basically “religions are very diverse.”
I think it’s a bit overstated, since offhand I can’t think of any sport that is “synonymous” with death, but let’s say it is a fact. Now, how are sporting injuries at all relevant to religion or his speech?
Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. If Jainism is the benchmark, then neither are Judaism or Christianity a “religion of peace.”
Perhaps, but since I haven’t read their manifestos I have no idea. Let’s say that is a fact too – they have the same ideologies. Actually, let’s go ahead and say they are all facts and see the argument we can construct with them:
The word “sports” refers to many diverse things, some of which have a greater risk of death than others. And since the word “religion” also refers to many diverse things, it’s ok to think some of them also have a greater risk of death than others. These terrorists who’ve killed thousands of innocent people claimed to be following Islam, so Islam is a religion with a greater risk of death, and thus is not a religion of peace.
But of course the argument is never formally presented (let alone as bluntly as that).
Like a stage magician, a good persuasive speaker structures his presentation in a way that makes his suggested conclusion appear unavoidable. But if you remain undistracted by misdirection and look at it from angles besides the one you are shown, the manipulations becomes more apparent. Harris also has a great deal of phsychological training and naturally uses subtle wordplay and suggestion techniques here to “help” people see his point without thinking it through too much.
Then why worry about it? Why does Harris use rhetoric about architects and mechanical engineers being slammed into walls at 400mph by people who can also build an atomic bomb and all the while believe they will get 72 virgins in heaven as a reward for it? Why does he even implore atheists to think of Islam in a worse way than they do other religions? Why go so far as to say it is delusional to say “Islam is a religion of peace”? It doesn’t take much to go from here to “Achtung Moslem!”
That is an argument from ignorance, and a collectivist one to boot. Are you well-versed enough in Islam or the Koran to know this? Is Harris? Putting the shoe on the other foot - Could people in a foreign non-christian culture see something like the Westboro Baptist Church (google if you’re curious - I won’t post a link) and regard it as having non-christian doctrine, or would they conclude it was a “very plausible version of the faith?”
