libertarians and Islam

I’ve quoted Koran, Hadith, and Islamic Scholars. I’ve provided evidence for my claims.

You on the other hand have made such unsubstantiated claims such as “Islamic jihad isn’t half the threat that democracy is” and “I think I have a clue or two about Islam.”

acutionguy 10 on the on the other hand is providing sources and on topic argument against a core piece of my argument. Something you’ve yet to do so I’m going to continue this conversation with him.

Maybe we’ll meet in more amicable terms on another thread.

Islam is a barbarian religion for sure, and I really do not have sympathy for most of the people living in a lot of islamic nations. However western foreign policy in the middle east is so incoherent it is no wonder that the west is in the situation it is in now

What the hell do you feel sorry for? An “idea” of people you have no idea or connection with and know nothig about? Do you realize how foolish that sounds? Moreover do you realize the consequences of this type of mystic thinking when people actual put it in practice?

@Hairnet, sounds like a true Scotsman fallacy there. Definitions of religions (and in general) change over time, your just making a semantics argument, and ignoring the subjectivity of religious labels. The people who consider themselves Christians are Christians. I mean if we’re going to stick to the same definition forever, most of the people here could not be considered anarchists.

Here is an example to clarify: Some folks argue that since marriage is between a man and a woman, two same gender folks cannot marry.
Of course this a ridiculous argument and goes against freedom of religion. If two people believe that two people of the same sex can have a civil union, and want to call it marriage, or “gay marriage”, then they can.

They are just labels.

@JABB Seriously, now your just ignoring what we are saying. Troll?

Seriously I think the world would be a lot better without pious humanstic Western patronizing “sympathy”

As sympathy is a hallmark of civilzation, and bigotry is far more anithetical to it than just about any religion, the only barbarism you are disclosing is your own.

The sad thing is they wouldn’t. You could switch the teachings of Moses and Muhamed and these people would still rile against Islam (now based on the Bible), but give Judaism and Wacky Protestantisms (now based on the Koran) a pass.

It has nothing to do with what Koran actually says, it is just that Islam happens to be the religion of the Oriental barbarians. Any excuse will do to look down upon them. What would the West do for its self-confidence and self-congratulation without insisting on comparing itselfy favorably to the Orient (and internally to Eastern Europe) every two minutes?

All people are mortal. Most people are concerned with their own lives and the lives of their families. We all are in the same human condition, and the same animal, driven by the same biological drives.

Remember that before calling masses of people “barbaric”.

We’ve already explained to you and others that those are not authorities of anything.

Probably not. My problem isn’t with your opinions of Islam, my problem is with your argumentation.

I asked you who claimed Islam was a religion of peace, which you called propaganda being spread here. No answer. Why are you unresponsive when asked to support your claim?

THE QURAN CONTAINS NO CONTRADICTIONS!

That’s the part in the article you posted where I stopped thinking of it as an intellectual rebuttal. It’s cute when people try and use their faith in defending their faith, but seriously…

The Koran is a book filled with fallacies, of scientific, logical, grammatical, historical and many other varieties. It’s not even close to a perfect book.

This is basically the ultimate list of koranic contradictions.

Apart from that this article doesn’t even do its job in proving that the doctrine of abrogation, isn’t a well accepted mainstream islamic doctrine.

All it says is that there are alternate translations for the ayats I quoted. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a well established doctrine of abrogation.

The article I posted below gives example of the doctrine in action. The best example is the Koran on wine.

-"An example that is often used to show the topic of abrogation as relevant and true in the Quran is the topic of wine drinking. In early Islam, wine drinking and gambling were allowed - Surah 2:219:

They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: “In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.” They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: “What is beyond your needs.” Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-

From this ayah it was taught that drinking and gambling could provide a benefit and also have bad effects. To identify that the practice of drinking wine was not uncommon among Muslims, another ayah was revealed that forbade the Muslims to come to prayer drunk, Surah 4:43:

O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body. If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again.

Note that Yusuf Ali in his translation uses the phrase “mind befogged”. Other Muslim scholars who have translated the Quran render the phrase slightly differently: Pickthall uses the word “drunken”, and Shakir uses “intoxicated”. It is clear that being intoxicated is the intended meaning. Also, during the battle of Uhud a number of Muslims were killed, some of whom had alcoholic drinks the morning of the battle. This can be seen from the Sahih (authentic) Hadith of Bukhari on the ill-fated battle.

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 142:

Narrated Jabir:
Some people drank alcoholic beverages in the morning (of the day) of the Uhud battle and on the same day they were killed as martyrs, and that was before wine was prohibited.

Then the ayah Surah 5:93 was revealed to stop drinking wine.

O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (Dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination, - of Satan’s handiwork: Eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.

Finally an ayah is revealed that considers drinking an abomination and to be avoided. Thus, this put an end to drinking being allowed in Islam. Since there is not much detail in the Quran about the context, let’s refer to Sahih Bukhari that clarifies what transpired."-

So yeah the doctrine is real and in effect.

@Libertyandlife

No, religions are based off of founding texts, and these people say that they claim to believe in what they say. Am I supposed to just ignore that?

It isn’t a true Scotsman fallacy because I am not talking about any specific behavior, but what people claim as their statement of faith/belief/truth to be.

A Hindu says to me "Oh yeah, read “The Gitas, that is a Hindu text”, I read it, think it is a horrible evil book, and say “Do you believe in this garbage?”.

If they say no, they are not really Hindu or the book isn’t, if they say yes then I am right in thinking that there is something wrong with them.

(the above was an example, doesn’t necessarily reflect my opinions of The Gita)

The only subjectivity there is, is trying to find a consistent message between texts and within a text. Even then there is a line where you can say “That directly contradicts a major theme of the founding text”. Like most Christians today are only vaugely believe what is in one small section of the New Testament, the rest they conveniently ignore.

If we throw out these categories then we get rid of their usefulness because anyone can claim to be Christian which is as good as the term “Christian” being meaningless. I accept there are vaugeries, but do you have a better definition that I should go by?

@Daniel James Sanchez

How am I expressing bigotry? They classify themselves as Muslims, and they claim the Koran as their article of faith. If they don’t believe in what is in that book then they are liars, that isn’t my fault. At the vary least they should call themselves “Post-Muslims” or “Neo-Muslims”, which would indicate that they want to continue the philosophical project of the founding text but have major problems with some of the ideas within it.

The Neo-Confucians did and now everyone knows that not all Neo-Confucians believes in praciticing ancient Chinese Rituals.

I will state this once again, I did not make these categories, these are internally, chosen, individually imposed categories. is differenThis t from race or sex which people do not choose. If you don’t like being associated with a race, you can not do anything about it. If you don’t like being associated with a religion you can immediately do something about it and stop going by that title.

Blowback is a consequence of the US and other countries trying to play favorites with countries and trying to buy influence for questionable gain. It would be better that we played on neutral grounds and mainly establish clear trade ties so that people and businesses can freely trade with one another.

The thing that gets me pissed is Scheuers accusation that this is all Israel’s fault. What he doesn’t realize is that arab diplomacy is based on saying one thing in public and doing another in private. So the leaders in the arab world stir up mass support by talking about how “we must fight the struggle against israel” but actually in private they have backdoor relations with the coutry on intelligence. If anything, they are more concerned with Iran than Israel, because israel is just a tiny country. Then you wonder because of all the hostility to israel etc, they are backwords in economic development as well as god knows what else.

Of course, Islam promotes wars against non believers who don’t swear allegience to Allah and Muhammad. See verse 9:33-9:35

Oh look, another excuse to look down on them.

And not based on knowledge either, the author is convinced Orientals are backward in many areas, but his limited knowledge does not actually permit him to name more than one.

I haven’t yet read the responses below so I can give an honest, unbiased opinion. I don’t care what Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives or libertarians say about Muslims…I know from experience that there are good ones, and there are most certainly bad ones. Muslims are people, but they have a different philosophy, and more importantly a different ideology, than most other people in the world that haven’t been exterminated through history of war and so forth. This isn’t a testament them by any means, only a reality. Some of the Muslim countries still live like they’re in the Middle Ages with their savage treatement of women and innocents. It’s absolutely sickening.

Islam is a philosophy more than a religion, imo. Having read many passages of the Koran (not from some rhetorical book, either), I learned enough to know that Islam is a religion that demands its practitioners to not evolve or adapt, not at all. It’s surprising to see some things in there you hear is either false or hearsay, yet when you read the words, you realize the intention of the movement is a non-stop extermination of everyone else not Muslim.

Again, to reiterate, I know moderate Muslims who are decent, hard-working and oftentimes America-loving individuals. Hell, one of my Muslim friends even has a Christmas tree during Christmas and exchanges gifts…something you would likely never see in so many Muslim countries. Not saying synchretism ought to be a goal; orthodoxy is up to an individual and what do I care?

But you can certainly do a comparison with the other western religions, Christianity and Judaism, but know that as enemies, Muslims can be a combination of the worst of the Japanese and the Nazis. The philosophy they adhere to is so freaking much like the Borg it’s ridiculous. Their philosophy demands converts, and if you don’t convert, they kill you. Like the Japanese, they kill themselves in order to kill you, and like the Nazis, they exterminate anyone who isn’t like them.

To maintain that Muslims hate us simply because we occupy their land with warfare is short sighted. Granted it might be fanning the flames more, this philosophy has sought to replace all other belief systems by force. Hatred is its fuel, and conversion is its route and the systematic deterioration of our resistance in combination with the infiltration of our engineering and education industries are its catalyst.

The mere fact that some people, whether they be liberals or libertarians, can defend their “freedom” when they condemn their own government seeking to enslave them is pure stupidity. How can you condemn one tyrannical movement yet ignore or support another? Absolute hypocrisy. So many people cannot have a discussion about Islam without pulling a PC maneuver by including Judaism and, of course, Christianity to nullify the ground. So many people are afraid to discuss the intentional genocide of this group of people, and to ignore it on some basis of “Oh, it’s just another religion,” or “If we left their area, they wouldn’t hate us anymore.” Absolute rubbish.

These are the same a$$holes that destroy Buddhist statues and temples*. Buddhists*! Buddhism, one of the few mainstream religions still in existence that only had one small battle (ironically over the Siddhartha Gautauma’s possessions, which is completely contrary to the Buddhist ideal of overcoming desire and attaining samsara) and never, ever fought in a war. The philosophy of Islam is what it is, and it should be watched carefully. Get to know people and you can see beyond titles, true…but it doesn’t change the philosophy of the religion. I’m sure there were nice Germans and Japanese during WWII, but did that change the fact that the Japanese shoved bamboo up people’s fingernails or Nazis putting people in the gas chamber? Absolutely not.

DO NOT IGNORE THE INTENTION OF ISLAM. No amount of nullification by comparison to other religions, time periods, et cetera can change the fact that their methodology is convert or destroy.

@hairnet

So what do you consider mosts of the christians in america to be? Agnostic? When they believe god and christ? How does that make sense?

Nothing is ever Israel’s fault.

@liberty student

“Islamic jihad isn’t half the threat that democracy is. Jihad is obvious and has an end. Democracy has no such failsafes built in.”

Are you freaking serious? I understand that democracy can lead to a mob ruled reality, but your claim is nuts. What is the obvious end of Jihad? Converting everyone and making them slaves to their religious systems and tyrannical ideologies built on raw hatred for anyone different, right?

Your claim sounds as though you believe the slave master that has all his chains shackled is better than having a majority of people chained since there is no room for growth on the former. But if room for growth includes chaining more individuals, implying that some are not chained, how is some worse than all being chained?!

Buddhism is the only peaceful religion?

You should really learn about the tyranny of the Dalai Llama and the history of southeast asia. LOL @ new age nonsense.

Buddhism is New Age?

Lol all credibility lost.

@hairnet

So what do you consider mosts of the christians in america who don’t follow christianity to strictly to be? Agnostic? When they believe god and christ? How does that make sense?

You don’t understand jihad qua jihad.

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

I have no idea what you are talking about.