No. What you are saying is that we cannot talk rationally about what constitutionial would mean, or law-abiding would mean. Constitutionial means in accordance with the constitution; law-abiding means in accordance with the law; Islam means in accordance with Allah, of whose edicts our only source is the Koran - Islam therefore means accordance with the Koran. The rational discussion of whether Islam is compatible with libertarianism then focuses on the ideas put forward in the Koran, regardless of whether anybody actually acts due to their belief in such ideas.
In your examples of nation, crowd, proletariat (and possibly the others depending on definition), there is no necessary rules that they must agree with in order to be defined as such. With Islam there most definitely are such rules.
EDIT: “Definition of a Muslim = one who we call Islamic based on an authority that we are willing to accept. That is honestly the best we can do”
A bit vague but the way I take it, yes that is true (as it is for all other things). But the point is that due to the history of Islam this authority can only be accepted with proper reference to the Koran and whether the ‘Muslim’ in question follows all principles presented in that document.
During my tour of Jordan ad Egypt, it is common to come across venders clustered together selling the same things. This entire isle in Alexandria were nothing but shoe sellers selling pretty much the same shoes.
I think we are talking past each other, or I am not reading you properly. I think any thing I say for the rest of the noght will just be repetition so I’m done, at least for the night.
For te record I am saying that rationally speaking:
You can’t follow Islam, Jazz, etc. You can only follow “oneself”
Islam does not state anything, nor can we say it does. No matter how fundamentalist you think the rules are it is not much of a rational catagory, as music is not much of a rational catagory. All we can say is Islam is Islam and if it is anything only states, thinks, and acts for Islam. This would be no different than anything else; such as you or I.
Of course Islam isn’t anything, nor is nation, communism etc. And when people say it is weird things happen. But while we can group people into broad catagories when dealing with these things on a material level when material is at stake (as ad execs do with house wives, children, etc), we can not say anything of such a thing on an intellectual level, because it doesn’t exist on an intellectual level. It is a non thing, and when intellectuals start taking these non things or words/ aesthetics/ cultures as “things in themselves” Pandora’s Box is about to be opened.
“All we can say is Islam is Islam and if it is anything only states, thinks, and acts for Islam”
That is in fact what I was saying and that was the entity to which I was referring.
"Islam is something that can indeed be precisely spoken about, in that it has a paricular document around which the entire belief system is established. This says nothing about people who call themselves Muslims.
As a side note and nothing at all to do with what I was talking about above, I suspect that a great amount of so-called Muslims do not live in accordance with the defining document of their faith."
Aristippus**,** you’re correct in what you say. The Bible also disproves the accumulation of wealth. However the problem with many Arabic countries is that there is little separation of religion and state. Government IS religion. Similar to what medieval Europe went through hundreds of years ago.
That is in fact what I was saying and that was the entity to which I was referring.
OK good. And I am saying I don’t understand how this is a useful view. It is something akin to saying “people who like van gogh are no good for liberty”. These are aesthetical catagories that we just can’t talk much about, and I don’t see any reason to view them as logical catagories. I mean I just can’t say much about poor taste in the realm of a social science or social practiced art.
At least not as definitive a way as I think you are trying to say it.
It’s not an issue of semantics, it is an issue of precision. The two words are not interchangeable, and your use of them interchangeably completely undermines the concept of property rights, without which there is no libertarianism.
Guys, religions change to fit the need, not the other way around. Whatever Mohamed allegedly said, it will be tweaked into something more ‘amenable’ if freedom is what Muslims want. So, its not so much about religion, as about spontaneous rules in general.
LS: That’s a pretty big exaggeration. If precision is needed, I can simply define my terms as I use them. What’s the problem of using coercion, especially when I can readily provide a definition? ‘Aggression’ is just as imprecise, since the state rarely uses aggression in the everyday sense - but that doesn’t matter since you have every opportunity to define your terms as you use them. There can really be no serious debate without definition of terms as they will be used. In any case, Hoppe (as but one prominent example) uses the term coercion all the time.
EDIT: Merlin, that’s true, but I defined what I was referring to when I spoke of ‘Islam’, so take my comments in relation to that (I think its fairly hard to sidestep that definition). Notice that I wasn’t talking about ‘Muslims’ (except as an off-topic side note).
Libertarians have already chosen aggression over coercion for very specific reasons. Your sloppy use of language is not new or novel. Normally people correct such sloppiness after some time hanging around LvMI. This may be your big moment.
Besides being an appeal to authority to which I could match that Hoppe refers to the Non Aggression Axiom, not the Non Coercion Axiom, if I was so inclined to post logical fallacies, what is your point?
Islam is what muslims practice. If you want to criticize a 1400 year old book, knock yourself out. That has little to do with the OP and even less to do with modern muslims.
As William said, but more intelligently and nicely, you’re tilting at windmills, missing the forest from the trees.
William was certainly operating on a different plane in that he completely misunderstood what I was saying. He thought I was referring to some unknownable, mystical conception of ‘Islam’. My argument was so simple and basically thus: Rothbard’s For a New Liberty cannot be reconciled with the Koran. Islam has nothing to do with the Koran?
EDIT: This is ridiculous. I say Hoppe uses coercion, you say that it is an argument from authority - and yet your reason for using aggression? Because libertarians use it!! My argument was not from authority, anyway - it was because coercion is a better term. But it isn’t a big deal, get over it.
You really must be arguing just for the sake of it. You should email Hoppe and berate him for his sloppy language - oh and also his views on religion and economics.
That’s what you get for making up your own definitions. Just kidding. That’s what you get when you can’t understand the argument at an epistemological level.
No, he is saying, in a sense, that is what Islam is, and your criticizing it is pointless.
Who claimed otherwise? The Quran is not Islam and FANL is not libertarianism.
As William said, you cannot make the aesthetic scientific. This is an important Austro-Libertarian insight.
Your circular definition of Islam (Islam is what Muslims believe; Muslims are those who believe in Islam) is hopeless. As a simple example, the first sentence of the wikipedia article is: ‘Islam is the monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an’ That is the reasonable and accepted definition. It was obviously what I was talking about to anyone familiar with the religion.
To sum up, you don’t have a leg to stand on regarding either issue and you’re basically just trolling.
I have lived with Muslims, I have been in mosques for prayers, and I have observed Ramadan. I have been around a madrasa, and I have spent time asking an Imam questions about his faith. I think I have a clue or two about Islam. I’d hazard a guess I know a hell of a lot more about Islam than you do.
Not that it is relevant, but since you continue to make fallacious appeals and ignore the meat of the argument, I’ll play your little authority game and raise the level of play.
Good luck finding any Muslim today who follows the Quran precisely, good luck finding more than a handful of Muslims who agree upon what the Quran says and how it should be interpreted.
I’m tired of you not substantiating your claims, and continuing to assert you’re right. If the best you have are logical fallacies and denial of your own biases, then this conversation is stillborn.
