Holy Jesus this is some solid logical reasoning.
How the hell is it that a philosophy supposedly entirely based against collectivism can use such collectivist language as “They have Declared War on Us” when referring to an entire religion? Even if it was true that a majority of Muslims wanted to install sharia law on the rest of the world, we still wouldn’t know if these specific people did or not. Merely being in a organization which has the same name as another organization which wants to kill you doesn’t give you license to aggress against them without further evidence.
I think the biggest mistake in both Islam and Objectivism is perhaps in assigning living heirs after the first teacher died.
The idea of what constitutes “Sharia Law” isn’t even some agreed upon consensus between all Muslims. I for one(I’ve probably repeated this a million times on this forum so forgive me), don’t believe that any “Muslim” country today follows Quranic law but rather old Tribal law with some semblance of Islamic ideas thrown in here and there. But even between them its not rigid- Saudi Arabia laws and Pakistani laws are quite different.
lol if Peikoff really believed that Muslims in AMERICA want to turn the united states into tribal afghanistan his paranoia is beyond insane and he’s simply collectivizing Muslims as one evil “zerg-like” entity.
This Peikoff guy has absolutely no clue what the “essential nature” of Islam is, period. The worst assertion this guy makes is that the ONLY reason there is conflict between the United States(Or the west) and Islam is because Muslims hate disbelievers and want to use force to change you. In Islam, force is very much forbidden especially when it comes to converting anyone to Islam. I can throw a bunch of Quranic verses to prove the point but I’ll save that for when someone asks.
I mean look at this nonsense "Most importantly, in my view, a significant number of Islam’s adherents have acted according to its teachings, killing thousands of Americans. And, by all accounts, they will continue to do so. Finally, it seems that the majority of Islam’s adherents are sitting by, silent, refusing to denounce the initiation of force by their fellow believers."
Really? A SIGNIFICANT number of Muslims are killing thousands of Americans? The majority of Muslims denounce the initiation of force by their fellow Muslims? Is he living in some fantasy world where Iraq and Afghanistan have invaded the United States? What the hell is he talking about. If he had no connection to Ayn Rand i’m sure no one would’ve even wasted time to read this poor excuse for an opinion.
John Ess replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 12:21 PM
"
I think the biggest mistake in both Islam and Objectivism is perhaps in assigning living heirs after the first teacher died."
Islam has many diverse sects in it. But if you go for the majority opinion, there is no living heir in Islam and never will be. Unless by living heir you mean anyone who considers themselves a scholar in Islam?
In Islam, for awhile you the selection of a caliph. To some degree it existed until Turkey abolished it. I think Iran has something similar. Not saying it is an issue now (Christianity did the same with the Pope, and have since abandoned this). But it is a way of bogging the religion down in entitlements and ‘officialness’.
I don’t think it is the same as scholarship. Philosophy is usually about the ideas rather than the person. And so people can benefit from the ideas apart from adoration of the person more specifically. the ARI has made sure it has become IP and a brand name. And they do this through carefully choosing who can talk about it with the most expertise. Probably one of the reasons it has been out of philosophical circles for the most part. And usually why it is a bore to discuss it. It gets bogged down in the personal interpretation of more mediocre people like Peikoff. Who refer back to Rand rather than the ideas.