Unlike christianity, Islam expansion already started by military expansion. Of the 3 abrahamic religions, Islam is the one that has the highest statist tendencies IMO. Of course some folks can interpret the most libertian aspects of it, but overall the islamic culture invested a lot in the concept of expansion.
I can’t remember what book from here I read, but there was one that propsed the theory that islam expanded only until the instituted a tax on adhearents of the faith, b4 that it was only on non-believers in islamic lands..
“For Good And Evil”
look up the definition of WMD. I believe fireworks qualifies as a WMD. Bush did not lie.
“…and the attack on the USS Liberty was an innocent mistake, Iran is ready to nuke Israel, Saddam had WMD’s…”
Well I’m not theorizing about something (9/11 happened) nor am I saying anything about the nature of Islam.
Just stating a fact of the matter. There are people who don’t like Islam because of what some Muslims did.
Private individuals building a place of worship on private property. No problem. Now i am no fan of any religion and have no personal beliefs but to somehow punish these private individuals b/c of their faith and what they are building on private property would make us asinine statists. Yes this religion in particular is very harmful to gays like myself and that pisses me off but i can’t convert people to atheism without being an authoritarian so let them build it any where they want.
I think sanctity of a place is broken up by a bar a lot more than by a place of worshipp.
Naturally the idea of Lower Manhattan as a sacred place is ridicilous, but apparently some people want to pretend it is.
It’s a sacred place in the civil religion, just like Ghettysburg, Philadelphia, Mount Vernon, etc.
Unlike christianity, Islam expansion already started by military expansion. Of the 3 abrahamic religions, Islam is the one that has the highest statist tendencies IMO. Of course some folks can interpret the most libertian aspects of it, but overall the islamic culture invested a lot in the concept of expansion
I really advise you to read the Torah and hte later Jewsih texts that did, or even the ones that didnt, make it into the Bible. The Jews in their conquering of Canaan were anything but benevolent colonialists. In fact, like most expansionists states, they were bloodthirsty and over-zealous; slaughtering entire cities, man, woman, child, old people, goats, chickens, and cows.
And then there’s Constantine, the Byzantine Empire, and the Catholic Church/Holy Roman Empire. Oh, so you think you’re better off being an atheist??? Soviet Union/ Maoist China is my answer.
Zen Masters and the Shaolin temple have supported numerous tyrants. The Dalai Llama was a tyrant till he left Tibet and conveniently forgot. I would say maybe Rastas and the Amish, that’s probably about the least violent religions so far. And them only because they are not very big.
Beware large movements of people claiming to know the truth.
Beware large movements of people claiming to know the truth.
That about sums it up.
The people who love to snicker at the past and “unenlightened” ideologies are usually creating and mocking a make believe world that is nothing but a shadowy refelection of the much more monsterous and unelightened ideology that they adhere to.
I honestly doubt anyone here could give an honest theological assesment of Islam or an actual coherent history of Islamic governments; as to actually know what you are talking about in such a field would take years of dedicated study and the willingness to actually want to learn it the subject on its own terms (and not libertarian terms).
Stick with what you know best when applying historical analysis; most likely the History of the US or UK and Dispensationalism Christianity
Well since people have free will there is really no ‘truth’ that can come about from a study of the Quran to make predictions about the future.
It is not as if there an objective meaning it that is placed in people’s brains upon becoming a Muslim or reading the Quran. That is really irrelevant.
I do believe that if we can criticize the legacy and ‘ideology’ of tyranny and statism – that all religions have perhaps given rise to – then we can also do the same for Islam. Or any religion. Since they too have legacies and ideologies. It is only fair.
I am not saying here how to judge them, but that this openness to judge past ideologies and potentially put oneself above them should be universalized.
–
and this rejecting of ‘truth’ I believe must be in bad faith and also self-defeating. It’s post hoc ergo propter hoc that truth-telling → tyranny, but also in order to put forward the theory of freedom for Muslims or indeed all people one must put forward some truth as to why.
I do believe that if we can criticize the legacy and ‘ideology’ of tyranny and statism – that have perhaps given rise to – then we can also do the same for Islam. Or any religion. Since they too have legacies and ideologies. It is only fair.
Perhaps, but I am calling BS on peoples knowledge of Islam, her history, and any real concern for it on this thread. Moreover, I am saying nobody actually wants to learn about it for any other reason than to apply their handy dandy libertarian/Enlightenment/etc anaylasis to it as quickly as possible. I find most political assesments of “religion” themselves comically naive (and I am a hard line materialist/ determinist) and far to eager to go into broad catagorizations.
Of course! You sure about that?
Regards, onebornfree.
All I know about Islam is that some people think Mohammed (and other great religous leaders) was epileptic (spelling?).
Oh, and they have over 100 names for God. And Islam means subservience to God. And there favorite saying is “There is only one God and Mohammed is his profit.”
Basically, very limited knowledge of the principles of the religion, and barely any of its history, other than that it was the region that protected science after the fall of Rome.
Heavens turmurkatroids! Somebody brought up 9/11 in a thread about a possible mosque a Ground Zero? Whatever next?
Regards, onebornfree.
It is also of note that the modern governments and politics of today are all born out of Enlightenment nonesense, which was distinctly “unreligious”. And the older neolithic governments were most likely due to irrigation, domestication of animals, and us already forming natural hierarchies. And as far as monotheism goes, it is quite probable that the Hebrews and Iranians lived in fairly decentralized regions for quite some time. As far as Paganism goes, if you want to bring up the Mesopotamian and Egyptian gods in favor of the state it can be countered with the Greek gods and arguably the Phoenicians. The correlation is too weak and if if there is one, it isn’t worth caring about; that’s just silly a silly Zeitgeist of the culture talking, the one where people watch Sam Harris and Dawkins debate Ben Stein and Bill O’Reilley and consider themselves “in the know”.
Dondolee: I studied Arabic language and middle-eastern culture in college.
I am not completely ignorant of this topic, but don’t think I am completely pessimistic. I see many ways of reconciliation with that area of the world: mainly through the growth and availability of art from our part of the world in those countries. Even ‘stupid’ tv shows, music and movies. Peace through trade and all that. That most people on the left decry as globalism and capitalism run amok – repeating the prejudice of the Ayatollah Khomeini and others. This has already happened: I have had a number of conversations with Muslims about things ranging from Dr. Phil to country music to the Die Hard series.
I think it is an Orientalist assumption that the Muslims are wholly other. There are many changes that occur over time and are acknowledged by Muslims. To ignore them I think is to do their civilization a disservice. Especially concerning right now when many political changes are occurring that will be important for the future.
Plus the Islam is not monolithic and each issue must be taken on its own: whether it be Egyptian, Syrian, Palestinian, etc. And I don’t even believe they think of themselves as pre-Enlightenment.
This is why Corboda House might be counterproductive. Because it will make Islam monolithic in people’s eyes again and people will not see subtlety. It is a centralization effort: to become the figure and representation in America. It might also reinforce a type of peaceful conservatism. Where they call an armistice and allow us to live in our boxes as long as they can live in theirs.
Or you could have Washington stop dropping bombs on them.
Well I can’t do anything about that. Many can’t.
All I can hope is that I can be separated as a human from the actions of the state.
Just as I would hope Arabs can be separated from the mere facticity of their religious upbringing or the feelings of extremist groups.
I do think we need to be honest and say that before each of us points the finger, we should expect people to extend their criticisms to their own cultures. So Arabs, before criticizing Israeli tyranny, should ask why they themselves have no freedom under their own governments. Before they criticize the US for torture and civil liberties abuses, they should also be honest about that which exists in their own countries.
There are implicit universal truths held in the fact that everyone is calling everyone else a terrorist. Namely that people don’t want violence or to be controlled. Perhaps that you aught not use violence to cement political goals: as is the definition of terrorism. But I think all parties should be called to task to act in good faith towards this common goal.
You may be right.
Of course if it is then the high priests of the civil religion should at least be consistent. If this is indeed “hallowed ground” as Pat Buchanan has called it, then shouldn’t the nearby strip clubs be closed down prompto?
I don’t agree with the mosque being built where it is, simply because it’s opposed by so many. But the hoopla over the issue has been astonishing. This is what the country has become - mob rule potentially trampling over property rights.