Ezra Klein even denies that it is a free speech or relgious issue.
The NYT claims that Islam is the real victim as Islamophobia will increase.
Even Catholic Bill Donohue claims that the cartoonists' intolerance caused their deaths. And free speech be damned:
"What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them."Of course Muslim clerics support the massacre:
"Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the Prophets of Allah, whatever your views on the events in Paris today! #ParisShootingAnd here is Dean Baquet of politico, weeping over the poor offended Muslim family in Brooklyn who is offended, offended mind you... And the lack of offense, of course, at Piss Christ, and note the "offensive images" which the NYT was NOT too pusillanimous to publish...
— Anjem Choudary (@anjemchoudary) January 7, 2015"
And CNN goes off on Israel...
When Piss Christ was popular with the Left and was accorded museum-quality status as "art", the Left defended it as free speech.
When their affiliation with Islam is seen as questionable, the Left goes berserk in defending their pals, and free speech is then criminalized. Hypocrisy is their stock in trade.
UPDATE:
Foreign Policy Editor Blames Paris Terror Attack on Abu Ghraib
MSNBC Guest: In Europe, 'Extreme Right' Exacerbates Conflict With MuslimsIn other words, they deserved it for stupidly "provoking Muslims". According to this coward-up theory, Muslims are just vicious animals on the hairy edge of total insanity and just waiting for that trigger to start killing everyone they see. Hmm. Maybe that actually is correct. But it doesn't warrant backing down because of that. In fact, it warrants just the opposite: man up; contain them; defeat them; minimize the damage that they can do when they go nuclear (which is frequently). It might just warrant shipping them back to the primitive society they love. Then they can go back to joyfully killing each other in the name of Allah and not us.
Financial Times Writer Says Charlie Hebdo 'Just Being Stupid,' 'Not the Most Convincing Champion' of Free Speech
"Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.
This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid."
30 comments:
Kissing the Ass of Islam?
I thought the ass was the exclusive symbol of the Democrat Party. Silly me!
Where's Dragon Fang when we need him/her to clarify this sorry situation as the unofficial representative "ass" of Islam?
Tbh, I find kissing the ring a smoother process, but whatever.
The Klan might as well start publishing satire cartoons, and then proclaim themselves champions of free speech. PR department gonna finally find a breakthrough.
If you are looking for examples of hypocrisy, how about the hypocrisy extraordinaire of firing an artist of the same magazine, who later got pulled into court, for making fun of Sarkozy's son marrying a Jewish woman. Right, mocking a living man is hate speech, but mocking a religious figure for the sake of provocation and attention-seeking is not hate speech.
This may blow your mind, but... Freedom of speech was never without boundaries.
Article 11 of The Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789 (France...)
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
This comes in many forms: Protection of minors, anti-plagiarism, confidentiality, respect for privacy, inciting racial and religious hatred, libel and defamation, encouraging crime, etc. Oh, and lets not forget the sure-fire way enact censorship: "Anti-Semitism", whatever that means in the 21st century (aren't Arabs Semites anyway?)! In fact, there are a whole bunch of European countries who carry sacrilege and blasphemy laws *gasp*. For instance, a fashion ad in France depicting a modernized last supper was banned since it is offensive to Christianity.
An economy alone will never be a society; there are always sacred figures which will bring social blasphemy if insulted, even if they are not divine (Holocaust, childhood, belief in inherit human equality).
Your hardcore libertarian view mixed with historical and cultural insensitivity sure fits with the imperial mentality that plundered the world for five centuries. Its OK, recovering from symptoms of barbarism takes time.
I don't consider any person who publishes these pathetic cartoons reasonable, and unfortunately some people can't help but feed the trolls or sink into their own irrationality.
Just like the 35 killed and +60 injured recently in Yemen, I offer condolences to the family and friends to the victims both in France and Yemen, and I hope the people responsible get caught and are severely punished.
Interesting opinions to say the least. However, I must say that acknowledging wrongdoing by both parties is not supporting the massacre (OMG, victim blaming, misogy- er. sadism!). Of course, human social interaction is complex and we are not living in some moral vacuum, thus it is not fair to blame one or two parties, however the terrorists take most of the blame.
Found this integrating artwork by Joe Sacco, you may add it to your collection, it is a bit comprehensive, so you might need to get a bit creative on commentary. Remember to not exaggerate too much :) .
http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks
Dragon Fang says,
” This may blow your mind, but... Freedom of speech was never without boundaries.”
And again you corrupt facts: the limits on free speech are of the sort, “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater”, or engaging in personal libel or sedition which is provably true in court, NOT protecting an ideology from criticism by killing the critics. [Your examples from France/Europe do not map onto American free speech]. You engage in criticism yourself, but not of Islam because it is protected by death threats. No, your criticism is of other ideologies and practices, and you feel quite free to engage in that speech without fear of AK47’s or beheading. That is free speech, and you use it, even ridiculing in your own way. Islam is outside the boundaries of that civilized concept. Fatwas demonstrate that. Why is Islam protected by killing its critics? Because that is its nature and the nature of its adherants. And here you are making the same claims.
Proponents of Islam have tried for years to get international law via the UN to establish severe punishment for criticizing Islam and thereby establishing Islam as the only possible speech without mortal fear. That is the very definition of barbarianism.
” An economy alone will never be a society; there are always sacred figures which will bring social blasphemy if insulted, even if they are not divine (Holocaust, childhood, belief in inherit human equality).”
Absolutely not the case. In the USA, it is not illegal to be a neo-fascist (neo-Nazi), to advocate the killing of post-natal children, to object to the concept of human equality, even the actual founder’s premise of equality of opportunity rather than the equality of personal qualities or personal outcomes. These things are dealt with by robust debate, although the encroachment of Political Correctness tends to follow the Islamic model of eradicating debate by instilling fear of retribution.
” Your hardcore libertarian view mixed with historical and cultural insensitivity sure fits with the imperial mentality that plundered the world for five centuries. Its OK, recovering from symptoms of barbarism takes time.
I don't consider any person who publishes these pathetic cartoons reasonable, and unfortunately some people can't help but feed the trolls or sink into their own irrationality.”
Here you are FREE to consider whatever you wish to consider; you are not free to silence me or anyone, much less to kill me or them (note that many of us in the US are in fact armed and proficient and not sitting ducks for the armed censors of Islam – as are the Europeans. Self-defense is another freedom, right and responsibility; that is different than censorship by assassination).
” Just like the 35 killed and +60 injured recently in Yemen, I offer condolences to the family and friends to the victims both in France and Yemen, and I hope the people responsible get caught and are severely punished.”
And I find these statements to be suspicious in the sense of self-serving righteous-appearance after having made the case which supports the killing of blasphemers.
” Interesting opinions to say the least. However, I must say that acknowledging wrongdoing by both parties is not supporting the massacre (OMG, victim blaming, misogy- er. sadism!). Of course, human social interaction is complex and we are not living in some moral vacuum, thus it is not fair to blame one or two parties, however the terrorists take most of the blame.”
And here it is: “most of the blame”. But not all, right? The dead are at least partly responsible for their own assassinations. Why? They offended someone. For that they killed themselves.
And the cartoon link you give us is absolutely rich: he condemns satire by using satire, and then ends with this absolutely vapid statement:
“For that is going to be far easier than sorting out how we fit in each other’s world”.
The EU opened up immigration to unsustainable levels, and is now overrun with Islamic enclaves which do not assimilate. These enclaves are not amenable to the laws of the countries they have invaded; the gendarmaries of these ex-nations even fear to enter the Islamic enclaves which are mini-caliphates. As the regional demographics change, the Islamic totalitarian caliphates will subvert their host nations and assert Sharia which in turn will effectively subjugate the original population. That is how we "fit into each other’s world".
Islam cannot and will not fit itself into the non-Islamic cultures which it invades. It will demand the opposite, that the cultures bend knees to Islam and to accept Islamic control of things like speech, women, etc; and when powerful enough, will demand it at the point of a sword or AK47 or suicide bomb while abducting and enslaving citizenry. It is doing that across Africa right now. Facts are available for scrutiny under free speech.
Go ahead and deny that. For the time being you still have freedom of speech to say what you think. And so do I.
"[...]NOT protecting an ideology from criticism by killing the critics[...]"
I believe the limits I mentioned of free speech are accurate. You provide redherring by mentioning other systems. You may find it beneficial to allow someone promoting world peace the same opportunity as someone promoting NAMBLA, homosexuality, pornography, or prostitution equal opportunity, however Islam doesn't see it as such.
The logical conclusion generates nothing but intolerance; if what is true, right, or beautiful is determined by the cultural environment, then what defines false, or wrong, or ugly? Other cultures? Any respect, appreciation, or adoption of what is found would be based on similarity to your cultures.
Your system is fundamentally based on rejection of absolutes which makes morality non-existent; there is no way to go around that. It boils down to Consequentialism, which is more popular, or Nihilism.
The point is that seeing these cartoons as something positive, while ignoring censorship by politicians, monarchy, catholic church, most things regarding the holocaust, etc. is pure hypocrisy.
Again, a debate or criticism is different than provocation. They are not mutually exclusive, but the object under question is provocation.
Funny, I thought proponents of Islam were trying to prevent some Western groups from using international organizations to enforce their beliefs on other cultures.
"Absolutely not the case. In the USA[...]"
I said "social blasphemy", this doesn't necessarily translate into legal actions. For instance, you find questioning absolute freedom of speech a blasphemy.
"Here you are FREE to consider whatever you wish to consider;[...]"
I find your counter threat confusing, and somewhat amusing considering I never made a threat, and I am not sure how you saw an implication.
Again, I never sanctioned these acts, and I never will.
"And I find these statements to be suspicious [...]"
I believe I expressly stated that the attack was not justified. Are you saying you want me to support the terrorist attack or something?
"And here it is: “most of the blame”. But not all, right? [...]"
Yes victims are not saints, hence they would have wrongdoings. You seem to misunderstand; saying that someone is wrong when he did A, and someone made a greater wrong when he did B, is not saying that that the first person made B. Is there a casual link between A & B? Perhaps, to a varying degrees of extent. Are action A & B good actions? No, but action B is worse.
"And the cartoon link you give us is absolutely rich [...]"
Actually he uses meaningful satire to condemn provocation for the sake of attention seeking, even if it was in the form of satire.
So you just discovered that a culture have to be dominant for a country to exist, or that two ship captains is either impossible, if they differ, or meaningless, if they agree?
There are communists in the US, therefore they will subjugate the original population and get rid of capitalism! Get real. This is done by not committing fallacies like neglect of probability.
It is interesting that non-Muslims in Muslim majority cities were allowed to form their own communities and legal system for non-felonies, for example where consuming alcohol was allowed. Heck, a Zardasht man could marry his sister. Sounds like more tolerance than your imperialism.
Provocation Alert: This comment might provoke Islamists!
Dragon Fang says,
”...however Islam doesn't see it as such.”
And that is the problem. As far as I am concerned what Islam thinks is of no importance whatsoever. I will not be driven by what Islamists don't like about me or what I do. Further, this comment – all by itself – shows the problem that Islam is for a free world: What Islamists think is “morally wrong or right” is to be dictated to the world on pain of death. Totalitarianism, pure and simple. A culture of violent, rigid, complete intolerance of everything which is not itself.
You don’t get to dictate to me or anyone else in a free society. Your entire chain of thought is “how can I limit freedom to match Islam, which is totalitarian”. So you emphasize the limits of free speech which are now imposed by death – in order not to be *offended* – Well guess what, that offends me in the deepest possible way, to my very core, for which I will fight and kill whoever attempts to force or impose their personal restrictions on me or my country. I was born free and I will die free, for freedom. Believe it.
That is what I will fight to the death, with pork-covered bullets if necessary. I am not making this up. I am dead serious, here. Islam will NOT dictate its hegemony through threats of death and dismemberment to me or mine. I will fight to the death, and so will a great many Americans.
” The logical conclusion generates nothing but intolerance; if what is true, right, or beautiful is determined by the cultural environment, then what defines false, or wrong, or ugly? Other cultures? Any respect, appreciation, or adoption of what is found would be based on similarity to your cultures.
Your system is fundamentally based on rejection of absolutes which makes morality non-existent; there is no way to go around that. It boils down to Consequentialism, which is more popular, or Nihilism.”
Wrong again. Western culture has drifted in that direction, yes, but it was founded on specific principles, including freedom from religious persecution by other religions. And that is what you are selling here, you are pushing religious persecution under the guise of “moral principle” which Islam dictates and enforces with killing and whipping and other barbarities. All in the name of an absolute concept of "truth and beauty" which is dictated, not discovered.
The logical conclusion is NOT intolerance; what Islam sells is totalitarian intolerance punishable by death, so your accusation of intolerance is in no manner the conclusion of logical analysis. A free culture does not prevent anyone from being insulted, nor does it subjugate its women, nor does it impose theological dogma on its population. That’s why Islamists don’t want to be free, and they want no one else to be free, either.
” The point is that seeing these cartoons as something positive, while ignoring censorship by politicians, monarchy, catholic church, most things regarding the holocaust, etc. is pure hypocrisy.”
And my point is that it is not necessary to see the cartoons as positive; it is VERY necessary to recognize the right to make such things without intervention from Islamic ideology, which has no right to impose itself where it is not wanted or respected. And we in the free world have the RIGHT to defend our rights from those ideologists who want to remove our rights. Islamists are so indoctrinated in their totalitarian war on everyone else that they think that actual rights belong only to themselves, and those rights include killing whoever they wish, whenever they wish it, to protect their WEAK ALLAH who cannot protect himself.
The censorship by politicians is fought at every front. It's a constant battle and responsibility of free people to fight it. The censorship of monarchy, catholic church, holocaust issues, doesn’t exist, not in the USA, so your comment is false, top to bottom.
” Again, a debate or criticism is different than provocation. They are not mutually exclusive, but the object under question is provocation.”
I refuse to walk in silence to avoid provoking feminists, Marxists, Leftists, Atheists and Islamists as well as any other ideology or religion. I will not be silenced by accusations of the thousands of microagressions and other butt-hurts INCLUDING provocation, which every totalitarian group in the world wants silenced by force.
” Funny, I thought proponents of Islam were trying to prevent some Western groups from using international organizations to enforce their beliefs on other cultures.”
You are right on that point. Western nations should abandon all other nations to stew in their own juices, kill each other at will, and scream Allah Akbar all they want, all while buttressing our own borders against encroachment by those same people. But that won’t happen. In the meantime, all those Islamic countries want our oil money. And that’s where the issue of energy independence comes to the fore: we should not deal with these countries, period. Let them steal each other’s women for sex slaves; don’t even report it here, because we need NOT to interfere.
” I said "social blasphemy", this doesn't necessarily translate into legal actions. For instance, you find questioning absolute freedom of speech a blasphemy.”
Social blasphemy is not even a thing. Freedom of speech is a thing, I have it, Islam wants it destroyed, thus it is a war brought on, not by me or any such thing as social blasphemy, it is brought on simply and purely by the aggression of Islam which wants to destroy what I have.
” "Here you are FREE to consider whatever you wish to consider;[...]"
I find your counter threat confusing, and somewhat amusing considering I never made a threat, and I am not sure how you saw an implication.
Again, I never sanctioned these acts, and I never will.”
And yet here you have done exactly that: freedom of speech is “hypocrisy”; these dead people were “provocations” to Islamic killers, etc. You believe that anything which offends is a provocation which in the end somehow justifies killing – the dead provoked the Islamists and thereby brought their own deaths upon themselves as a sort of Islamic-implemented suicides.
And I don’t believe your statement about not sanctioning, because the rest of your position belies it, by listing justifications for silencing speech.
” "And here it is: “most of the blame”. But not all, right? [...]"
Yes victims are not saints, hence they would have wrongdoings. You seem to misunderstand; saying that someone is wrong when he did A, and someone made a greater wrong when he did B, is not saying that that the first person made B. Is there a casual link between A & B? Perhaps, to a varying degrees of extent. Are action A & B good actions? No, but action B is worse.”
And as always in your writings here, person who did A had no Rights to do A, protected and codified by both culture and law, and was “wrong” purely because: Islam. Islam says that it has the right to kill and to decide who to kill and when to kill based on lots of reasons, including mere provocation. It happens all the time. Maybe that’s B, but under Islam B is not wrong, B is the way of the master.
” "And the cartoon link you give us is absolutely rich [...]"
Actually he uses meaningful satire to condemn provocation for the sake of attention seeking, even if it was in the form of satire.”
You see just what you want to see. It was satire attacking satire, and, if you wish: provocation attacking provocation. In other words, thoroughly self-referencing non-coherent irrational ideology of censorship and condemnation of non-narrative thoughts.
” So you just discovered that a culture have to be dominant for a country to exist, or that two ship captains is either impossible, if they differ, or meaningless, if they agree?”
If one wants freedom and the other wants total dictatorial domination, as in the west vs the Islamics, then that is the case; it is not a recent discovery as you sarcastically suggest; it is almost a first principle of being human. The Islamic solution is to kill everyone who is not inclined to bow to Islam. That enables the global caliphate.
” There are communists in the US, therefore they will subjugate the original population and get rid of capitalism! Get real. This is done by not committing fallacies like neglect of probability.”
Communists within the US are not competent, do not kill, are happy to just whine, for the time being. Communists external to the US are increasing their arms while the US is unilaterally disarming. We are admittedly in a period (a short one I hope) where the threats to the US are being ignored, including the hegemonies of China and Russia as well as the Islamics. The Islamics work from the inside-out and will soon show themselves as they emerge domestically as they are doing in France. The progress of China and Russia will be more easily tracked than the Islamics. All three threaten the culture, freedoms and independence of the USA. Perhaps the next world war will have three fronts rather than two as in WWII.
You can play with probability all you want but you have no grounding data to provide real calculations based on actual fact.
It is interesting that non-Muslims in Muslim majority cities were allowed to form their own communities and legal system for non-felonies, for example where consuming alcohol was allowed. Heck, a Zardasht man could marry his sister. Sounds like more tolerance than your imperialism.””
And this relates how to ISIS, Al Queda, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, and the myriad other Islamists? Beirut was a tolerant city once; then came Islam and the 6th century returned it to the dark ages. The same all over the middle East. Advocate education for women: death. But listing the atrocities is merely a provocation, right?
Apparently 2,000 Baga villagers offended Boko Haram, so the Islamists killed them.
Surely they should have known better than to have offended the sensitive Boko Haram slaughterers, who are not responsible for their righteous rage and several-day long rage-a-thon during which the offenders were dispatched.
No one knows how the Baga villagers managed to offend the sensitivities of Boko Haram, but it must have happened - the villagers are dead, aren't they? And it must be their own fault, because the Boko Haram's are part of the religion of peace...
Hmm... What do you mean by "Islamist"? I follow Islam, therefore I am an Islamist, or Muslim for short.
"And that is the problem. As far as I am concerned what Islam thinks is of no importance whatsoever. [...]"
I was simply addressing your redherring about comparing system. However, it seems it was reinforced by a strawman. My statement had nothing to do with a minority enforcing Islam and replacing your system; it was simply comparing the two systems. So don't really have anything related to my statement to respond to, although I appreciate the sentiment of patriotism.
"[...] but it was founded on specific principles, including freedom from religious persecution by other religions. [...]"
So it solved the problem of diversity by removing all religions except Secularism from rule? Well, likewise Islam solved it by excluding all religions from rule except Islam.
Don't see your point; aren't what you are just doing now a religious prosecution against Islam?
Islam have a complete social reform system that reduces vices. Punishments are only one part of it, not its basis. Plus, they are difficult to prove in court (four pious witnesses for adultery who directly saw "the ink enter the pot"), they are more often than not simply very psychologically effective deterrents.
*raises eyebrows* Who says we haven't discovered truth and beauty? Well, discussing this point would end up being a debate whether Islam is true. However, the moral of the story is: I have objective basis which I can justify, and you... have to settle with justify a liar's paradox about the relativity of said metaphysical entities, or their non-existence.Please tell me what reason you have to dislike Islam other than not being similar to your culture. Got anything other than (I arbitrarily want X, therefore Y) Consequantalism or outright Nihilism? If so, then you may have revolutionized philosophy *rolls eyes*.
Are you saying that matters in western culture is decided by consensus of the population? If not, then the majority of the population? Since Democracy doesn't really work, gotta be a republican legislative council whose officials are voted in by the majority, right
Do the officials in the legislative council express the thoughts of who voted for them? You can't consult the majority, and if you could they wouldn't have many valid opinions as they require knowledge or expertise that take too long to communicate.
So people in Western culture are satisfied in legislators being people like them, under the condition that they follow a constitution (not an autocracy) and their legislation wouldn't contradict the constitution.
So? How is your constitution more intolerant to you than Islam's constitution, the Quran and Sunnah, is intolerant to a Muslim?
Tolerance is relative; it usually influenced on what you believe is right or wrong, or beneficial/harmful to your society and community (for instance we are intolerant toward genocide). The difference is that my intolerance is rational and justifiable; intolerance toward falsehood. However, you are obligated to believe in the freedom of speech for those condemning freedom of speech (yes, you follow something internally incoherent). The contradiction is irrelevant; after all you accept an irrational basis for expressing thought such as whims, going all the way to self-worship, and someone saying "if something is wrong, it is not 100% wrong".
Absolute freedom is an illusion, however Islam provides more freedom as it doesn't shackle people by the arbitrary ideology of other people, nor social conditioning, nor cultures. If you see the epitome of freedom is choosing what to buy from the grocery store then that is the epitome of a simplistic view (Free to choose your DNA, school, teachers, etc? Free to not follow the laws of your country which were decided by someone else outside of your control?).
I am sure you will applaud your family members being drawn and published publicly; I think I'll settle with a culture that is based on respect and cooperation.
By definition, Islam subjugates mankind, hence men & women, to God. As a plus, it doesn't exploit women commercial and have them ownership their femininity without people arbitrarily judging them based on their body before anything else.
"And my point is that it is not necessary to see the cartoons as positive [...]"
If you don't see it as positive, then why are you supporting it again? Let me guess, you fully support homosexuality and pornography due to appeal to popularity. I keep wondering why you are trying to censorship the free speech of those condemning free speech, isn't that censorship which is against free speech?
I enjoyed your conspiracy theory, but I am confused; you first call them Muslims, and then explictly state that they don't follow Islam. Hmm...
And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah , lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do. (Quran 6:108)
"You see just what you want to see. It was satire attacking satire, [..]"
I don't find semantic arguments that fall apart when words are defined noteworthy. Unless you demonstrate that critism is the same thing provocation, my point stands.
"If one wants freedom and the other wants total dictatorial domination [...]"
If one wants freedom (for cannibalism) and the other wants total dictatorial domination (to prevent cannibalism), then I call all cannibalists to get rid of this tyranny!
Unlike Western cultures, Islamic societies doesn't try to force minorities to embrace the values popular in society (secular liberalism). Only for the sake of a stable society, that there is a dominant culture which makes the basis for economical, political, educational, foreign affair, etc. policies.
"Communists within the US are not competent, [...]"
What can I say? False ideologies that are based on contradictions encourages division among itself. There is no limit to the forms falsehood can take afterall. Once again, not standing to freedom when convenient.
Out of curiosity, do you think the military budget should increase or decrease? How would you have crippled China from multiplying their military, and prevented Russia from recovering?
I am OK with French telling French Muslims to get out of their land if France restores what colonism took from their grandparent's lands, and the streets built by their grandparents as cheap labor while living in ghettos are removed.
"And this relates how to ISIS, Al Queda, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, [...]"
It relates to them being Khawarijite sects following falsehood, notorious then and notorious now. Didn't find any sources on Beirut, if anything they brought it out of the dark ages after an earthquake killed +30000 people. Interesting that the founder of the first university was a Muslim woman. Listing "bitter truths" if they are accurate is not intended provocation and is usually used for education or academic reasons, or in discussion. Childish insults is provocation.
Dragon Fang,
Before we start, I’m not clear on what you mean by Islam, since there are several categories to consider.
I am not aware of your particular Islamic theory, when we discuss Islam, is it Sunni or is it Shia? If Sunni, are you taking the stance of the Wahabbi? What sub-category of Islam holds what you consider to be “truth”? Why are the other sects working under delusions of false “truths”?
Dragon Fang says,
"[...] but it was founded on specific principles, including freedom from religious persecution by other religions. [...]"
So it solved the problem of diversity by removing all religions except Secularism from rule? Well, likewise Islam solved it by excluding all religions from rule except Islam.
Don't see your point; aren't what you are just doing now a religious prosecution against Islam?”
You don’t see the difference between accommodating all religious beliefs under a non-religious government, and the dictated sole religion of Islamic Sharia under Islam? It persecutes Islam to NOT allow Islamic totalitarian control? Sorry, that is nothing more than the totalitarian hegemony of Islam speaking its very name for all to experience.
”I was simply addressing your redherring about comparing system.”
You might wish it to be a red herring, but it is not; it directly addresses the point, which is this: Islam is by its very core nature a religious dictatorship, totally intolerant of power sharing with other, non-Islamic cultural concepts.
”Islam have a complete social reform system that reduces vices.”
Every totalitarian dictatorship does this. All deviation is removed by killing those who deviate from the narrative. Nothing new there, and certainly nothing to brag about, because the “cure” is a worse vice than the offense.
”Punishments are only one part of it, not its basis. Plus, they are difficult to prove in court (four pious witnesses for adultery who directly saw "the ink enter the pot"), they are more often than not simply very psychologically effective deterrents.”
Yes, reins of terror do work that way. A good example is 1,000 lashes at 100/week for blogging. Ruling by abject fear.
”*raises eyebrows* Who says we haven't discovered truth and beauty? Well, discussing this point would end up being a debate whether Islam is true. However, the moral of the story is: I have objective basis which I can justify, and you... have to settle with justify a liar's paradox about the relativity of said metaphysical entities, or their non-existence.Please tell me what reason you have to dislike Islam other than not being similar to your culture. Got anything other than (I arbitrarily want X, therefore Y) Consequantalism or outright Nihilism? If so, then you may have revolutionized philosophy *rolls eyes*.”
OK, here is your chance to support your own words: give us the “objective basis which you can justify”; make absolutely sure that it is objective, though. Show us what you’ve got.
And state outright “the liars paradox” to which you obliquely accuse me.
And since you didn’t capture what I’ve written before, please try to apprehend this: I am free; you are part of a totalitarian dictatorship, just as certainly as the Red Army of Lenin and the Jacobin Reign of Terror in revolutionary France. There is no difference: accept my ideology or die.
As for your accusation of consequentialism, that is demonstrably false and I suspect that you know it very well. Western law and culture is based on principled freedom, which goes back to the Magna Charta in 1215, and is instilled in the US Constitution, for which we still have to fight. Hardly unprincipled consequentialism and certainly not nihilism. So your sarcasm and eye rolling are merely histrionic failures, not rational arguments.
Defending the totalitarianism of a terror-based ideology is a difficult task, isn’t it?
”So people in Western culture are satisfied in legislators being people like them, under the condition that they follow a constitution (not an autocracy) and their legislation wouldn't contradict the constitution.
So? How is your constitution more intolerant to you than Islam's constitution, the Quran and Sunnah, is intolerant to a Muslim?”
Legislators who are principled under the notion of freedom, personal responsibility, and good civil character, and conversely not totalitarian ideologies (such as Marxism and Islam), do obey the restrictions placed on governing, and do respect the freedoms outlined in the US Constitution. It is when a significant portion of the population becomes totalitarian and uses their votes to elect totalitarian legislators that democracy is no longer democracy, it becomes totalitarian. But that is a violation of the US Constitution, not a feature of it. Democratic republics are always vulnerable to seizure by totalitarians, and freedom always is under assault. It must be fought for.
But of course that is not your personal preference; you advocate for a specific brand of ideological totalitarianism and have no tolerance for deviation from that. That is how Islam is defined.
”olerance is relative; it usually influenced on what you believe is right or wrong, or beneficial/harmful to your society and community (for instance we are intolerant toward genocide). The difference is that my intolerance is rational and justifiable; intolerance toward falsehood. However, you are obligated to believe in the freedom of speech for those condemning freedom of speech (yes, you follow something internally incoherent).”
False again. It would be non-coherent to (a) claim tolerance while (b) exhibiting complete intolerance of dissent. Tolerating even those who disagree is perfectly coherent. That intolerance of dissent is the rational failure of both the western Leftists and Islam, which is another reason that they hang together, despite one being radically Atheist, and the other radically theist. They have a common thirst for totalitarian control of the cultural dogma, and they hate each other’s religious tenets, which is another non-coherence, this one in their relationship.
”The contradiction is irrelevant; after all you accept an irrational basis for expressing thought such as whims, going all the way to self-worship, and someone saying "if something is wrong, it is not 100% wrong".”
That is again, completely false. Western culture is heavily based in Aristotelian logic, including the First Princples of Thought which express exactly the opposite of that. What you are addressing is the assault on western culture and civilization by your allies, the western Leftists who support Islam and its totalitarianism and pograms on westerners, Africans, Asians and each other (especially women).
”Absolute freedom is an illusion, however Islam provides more freedom as it doesn't shackle people by the arbitrary ideology of other people, nor social conditioning, nor cultures.”
Yes. No one is allowed to think thoughts which are not approved by the nomenklatura. This is Orwellian to the max., and demonstrates fully the need to prevent the spread of your totalitarian ideological nightmare. This statement could be taken directly from the little red book of Chairman Mao.
”If you see the epitome of freedom is choosing what to buy from the grocery store then that is the epitome of a simplistic view (Free to choose your DNA, school, teachers, etc? Free to not follow the laws of your country which were decided by someone else outside of your control?).
I am sure you will applaud your family members being drawn and published publicly; I think I'll settle with a culture that is based on respect and cooperation.”
Given the Hamas cartoon just this week of a mountain of Jewish skulls your claims are falsified by facts, so it is hardly necessary to even address them, but I will anyway. Here you are pushing your personal concept that freedom is not necessary, not even possible, so why not be a Muslim. I accept that to be your opinion, which is objectively just your opinion. I accept that you desire my incarceration under your own ideology, and you will call that “freedom”. I accept that you absolutely hate the idea of freely elected, constitutional-minded representatives which DO NOT thrust Islam on their constituents. But I do not and will not accept your hegemony over me. If war is required to protect my culture and freedoms, then war it shall be.
”By definition, Islam subjugates mankind, hence men & women, to God. As a plus, it doesn't exploit women commercial and have them ownership their femininity without people arbitrarily judging them based on their body before anything else.”
Your use of “God” is false; Islam subjugates mankind into denial of free will, which is a property necessary to freely choose, not to be forced by barbarians into religious claims in order to avoid death and dismemberment. That sort of god does not deserve the capital G because it is too weak and is dependent upon humans for its defense. That sort of god is paradoxical in that it would demand the forcing of constraints which it could have built into humans at the start. Instead, it demands that bloody hell on earth be released in order to rectify the errors in its creation. And for some reason, the believers are the instruments of hell on earth. This you call “God”?
”If you don't see it as positive, then why are you supporting it again? Let me guess, you fully support homosexuality and pornography due to appeal to popularity. I keep wondering why you are trying to censorship the free speech of those condemning free speech, isn't that censorship which is against free speech?”
And again you completely fail to connect with the reality of western civilization. No one is attempting to cancel the speech of homosexuals, pornography, or those who condemn free speech. You are completely out to lunch on this. Censorship removes the necessity to engage free will and the necessity to engage principled behavior as a choice. Choosing principled behaviors from a menu which include bad behaviors represents moral decision making. Being prevented from that choice by fear of bloody beheading does not engage moral decision making, it engages fear. Yes we have laws prohibiting some behaviors, but the punishment is not ideological, and in most cases it is rehabilitative. It does not include 1000 lashes at 100 per week, nor beheading for dissent.
I enjoyed your conspiracy theory, but I am confused; you first call them Muslims, and then explictly state that they don't follow Islam. Hmm...””
If you are referring to my Boko Haram comment, then you are deaf to sarcasm. I must be more careful, since Islamists are not given to irony comprehension, at least regarding Islamists.
”"You see just what you want to see. It was satire attacking satire, [..]"
I don't find semantic arguments that fall apart when words are defined noteworthy. Unless you demonstrate that critism is the same thing provocation, my point stands.”
Your opinion here actually requires that criticism be equated definitionally with provocation upon the whim of random Islamists, and therefore criticism is punishable by random Islamists who wish to defend their weak deity by killing the critics. Charlie Hebdo is hardly the first example of this. Taking offense is not a moral position; it is just another hegemonic reaction justifying bloodlust.
”"If one wants freedom and the other wants total dictatorial domination [...]"
If one wants freedom (for cannibalism) and the other wants total dictatorial domination (to prevent cannibalism), then I call all cannibalists to get rid of this tyranny!
Unlike Western cultures, Islamic societies doesn't try to force minorities to embrace the values popular in society (secular liberalism). Only for the sake of a stable society, that there is a dominant culture which makes the basis for economical, political, educational, foreign affair, etc. policies.”
This has to be the most rationally absurd statement possible to make, especially in the face of objective evidence. Islamic societies force – FORCE – their own blood-drenched ideologies on their citizens. Iranians will be Shias; Afghans will be Sunnis. Sunni ISIS will be fought by Shia Iranians. Force and fear of beheading is the main incentive for becoming “Muslim”. What sort of morality is that, which is induced only by fear of the other “believers”? Western youths are attracted by the opportunity to engage in causing fear, and to draw blood in order to have meaning in their cowardly lives. The need to force others to your side is merely a sign of inherent weakness on your side.
This forcing of ideology is the basis for the constant bloodshed in the middle east. The Islamic enforcers form into slaughter mobs. As for policies, they are diktats, by Mullahs.
”Out of curiosity, do you think the military budget should increase or decrease? How would you have crippled China from multiplying their military, and prevented Russia from recovering?”
The military must withstand military and terrorist assault and must be supported commensurate with that function. Obama seems intent on crippling the military, both by budget strangulation and by Political Correctness ideology such as forcing quotas for people not actually qualified to perform battle functions. What happens in China and Russia is of concern only if they attack us or our treaty allies.
”I am OK with French telling French Muslims to get out of their land if France restores what colonism took from their grandparent's lands, and the streets built by their grandparents as cheap labor while living in ghettos are removed.”
Ah. Reparations are necessary. Just like the Saudis rebuilt the twin towers, right. But seriously, why should the Muslims return to where they were not born? That is just as serious an issue as why the Jews must leave Europe and go to a homeland where they were not born, just to avoid being terrorized by European Islamists.
Not too sure what this final comment means:
”"And this relates how to ISIS, Al Queda, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, [...]"
It relates to them being Khawarijite sects following falsehood, notorious then and notorious now. Didn't find any sources on Beirut, if anything they brought it out of the dark ages after an earthquake killed +30000 people. Interesting that the founder of the first university was a Muslim woman. Listing "bitter truths" if they are accurate is not intended provocation and is usually used for education or academic reasons, or in discussion. Childish insults is provocation.”
It seems contradictory; one sect claims one truth, but another sect claims a different truth, all under the umbrella of Islam. So they kill each other over this as infidels and kill outsiders and it is all justified by whatever truth each sect has chosen to be “true” and therefore to be forced onto everyone else. This is in the name of “stability” as you claim above. The fact of Islamic instability is observable in all areas where Islam exists. The concept of Islamic stability is this: it is a utopian fantasy; it involves the subjugation of all peoples; it involves the removal of free will.
Apparently free will is a human defect under your interpretation of Islam; Islamists have the will to assert their ideology onto others by force; the others are not allowed free will to decline (unless they are people of the book – sometimes, sometimes not). This represents your moral principles.
Back to my original question at the first. If you assert that Islam(A) holds exclusive truth, then Islam(B) does not, and is false. Falseness must be eradicated. But they say the same thing about you. So you must prevail in battle, right? That is how Islamic truth is determined? By the miracle of conquest and force? What if you lose and are killed by the other Islamist? Does that not verify his truth and nullify your own? Or does death merely lead to martyrdom… on both sides? Why is that not non-coherent?
Finally, what if the logic of force equals morals? Whoever wins the battle for the world is the most moral. Apparently you think that Allah will provide you with the win, even if Allah cannot avenge itself and needs humans to do it.
Plus, if you do not win, then the anti-morality is placed on the loser, which is yourself along with all of Islam.
There is no recourse, then except to be as brutal in battle as possible in order to be morally justified, right?
So brutal battle is THE defining feature of Islam.
Consider:
". . .the moral of the story is: I have objective basis which I can justify. . ."
There can be no constructive PEACEFUL dialog between adherents of Islam and non-adherents. Why not? Because the two sides use the same words, but not the same dictionary.
This is the result of the application of the taqiyya and kitman which is explicitly advocated by Islam.
It is exactly parallel to expecting moral behavior A PRIORI from Atheo-Leftists. Whatever the Islamist or Atheo-Leftist does is automatically moral BY DEFINITION.
Consider:
". . .the moral of the story is: I have objective basis which I can justify. . ."
You ask for that OBJECTIVE basis.
Here is an example:
The OBJECTIVE of Islam is the establishment of Islamic rule over all others. THAT is the "objective" basis referenced by Dragon Fang.
It is not his responsibility to enlighten you, as an infidel, on why his definition of "objective" does not match your definition (the opposite of subjective, a personal viewpoint). He will continually claim to be "objective;" the infidel's definition is non-operative.
Your definition of "freedom" also fails: his definition is that "freedom" comes from total subjugation to Islam. The House of Islam is the House of SUBMISSION. All non-Muslims (and all sects not in 100% accordance with his particular sect's interpretation of the Qur'an) MUST BE subjugated or expunged. Allah does not permit any choices to the infidel except submit or die, and (depending on the Islamic adherent) you as an infidel may not get to make that choice.
As I've said before, quoting (perhaps Joseph Sobran?):
They use our language (AGAINST US) but they don't use our dictionary.
Sir Serpent's Denture makes that abundantly clear in every post. Any expected usage of terms is nullified by the Qur'an (or at the least, his interpretation of it). Infidels are NOT allowed to read and interpret the Qur'an - that is verboten. (And for those of you converts who cannot read the Arabic language version of the Qur'an, you have NO IDEA what the Qur'an REALLY says to "true" Muslims.)
The only thing that has surprised me in the least is the readiness of Sir Serpent's Denture to drop the taqqiya and kitman and nakedly assert the domination principle of Islam straight out. I can only presume that means he believes that the time has come to drop the pretense of the "religion of peace (left unsaid: FOR MEMBERS OF MY PARTICULAR SECT)" shtick, and inform the infidels of their fate.
It is a waste of time to attempt a logical conversation (in the Western philosophical sense, not in the Islamic sense) with someone who does not even acknowledge that he is using a different set of definitions, even while he is obviously aware of the differences. This is the great advantage of an Islamic adherent who utilizes taqqiya and kitman. He cannot lose any argument, simply because he is not talking about the same concepts.
Robert,
I just wrote a post on Tanya Cohen's latest Leftist rant, and came to the same definitional issue with her. She, like Dragon Fang, pervert definitions at will with the idea that they can slide these sweet terms (social JUSTICE, TOLERANCE, EQUALITY) past the dufusses in the herd (who are neither as incredibly intelligent nor as perfectly moral as are the Messiahs).
The resemblance is nearly exact; each knows better than anyone else what is good for them, what is moral, what is intellectually correct and objectively TRUE. Their tactics match; their conclusions diverge in opposite directions, on separate planes. BUT, their enemies are identical: western culture and those who defend it.
That is why Obama did not go to Paris; the Islamists are the Leftists homeboys. There is no outrage to be had when they slaughter westerners. So protesting in a huge demonstration against the homeboys is just not rational for Obama and it likely did not even occur to him to do so.
It was narrated from Anas bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said:
‘The Children of Israel split into seventy-one sects, and my nation will split into seventy-two, all of which will be in Hell apart from one, which is the main body.” -Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 3993
The worst of things are those that are newly invented (in religion); every newly-invented thing is an innovation and every innovation is going astray, and every going astray is in the Fire.' -Sunan an-Nasa'i, Vol. 2, Book 19, Hadith 1579
Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects - you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only [left] to Allah ; then He will inform them about what they used to do. (Quran 6:159)
{30} So direct your face toward the religion, inclining to truth. [Adhere to] the fitrah of Allah upon which He has created [all] people. No change should there be in the creation of Allah . That is the correct religion, but most of the people do not know.
{31} [Adhere to it], turning in repentance to Him, and fear Him and establish prayer and do not be of those who associate others with Allah
{32} [Or] of those who have divided their religion and become sects, every faction rejoicing in what it has.
(Quran 30:30-32)
I guess you can call me Sunni since most sects seem to not even acknowledge it. I've never heard of anyone who seriously calls self "Wahabi" (Although you can find a bunch of people who identify as a Shiite, Sufi, etc.), or quote Mohammed Abdu Al-Wahab. Sunni simply follow the Quran and Sunnah. And any saying can be dropped if it contradicts them.
More than a plentiful of sects include polytheism (a clear-cut but not the most spectacular example would be Sufi and Shiite believing that their Imams can know the future, while the Quran and Sunnah clearly states that omniscience is exclusive to Allah).
"You don’t see the difference between accommodating all religious beliefs, [...]"
Mormons allow polygamy, how was their religious belief accommodated? It was excluded from rule.
It is a bad joke that Secularism is somehow neutral to religions. The word in its broad Arabic sense can mean "method of life" and "law".
[...]Thus did We plan for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king except that Allah willed. [...] (Quran 12:76)
If we look at it from that perspective secularism is a religion, in which the leader makes rules based on an ideology stated in te constitution, and these rules are subjected on the citizens, and the officials are required to pledge their allegiance to that ideology.
It is as simple as that; your system is equally totalitarian if not more.
"You might wish it to be a red herring, but it is not; [...]"
Ahh... Your point was that I am trying to enforce Islam in the US or something like that.
Your system is intolerant toward absolutes; the same thing you complain about. Again, your constitution is enforced on US citizens, therefore the US is a dictatorship? An Islamic nation could be a republic for all you know.
"Every totalitarian dictatorship does this. [...]"
Actually, that was more along the lines of: We don't have alcohol promoted and sold publicly, and then punish people for doing stupid stuff while drunk.
"Yes, reins of terror do work that way. [...]"
Are the deterrents effective (save life, money, etc.)? Then we have given our sympathies to potential victims their due.
The lashes are more like symbolic taps, meant for humiliation not pain. I'd take them any day over water boarding, but I digress. Response below.
"OK, here is your chance to support your own words: give us the “objective basis which you can justify”; [...]"
Sure thing.
[35] Say, "Are there of your 'partners' any who guides to the truth?" Say, " Allah guides to the truth. So is He who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed or he who guides not unless he is guided? Then what is [wrong] with you - how do you judge?"
[36] And most of them follow not except assumption. Indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of what they do.
(Quran 10:35-36)
If the Quran is from God, and since God his orders are always manifestation of his perfection and maximum justice, mercy, wisdom, etc. they are objectively good.
However, since your morality is not objective, it is subjective (law of excluded middle). So here is the air-tight paradox-exposing, morality-destroying question: Is the morality of Islam equally valid due the subjective nature of your morality?
1- Yes: Then the objective morality of Islam should apply to you.
2- No: Then you believe your morality is objectively better.
The only alternatives left is that either morality is objective, or there is no morality at all.
This begs the question: What made your morality objective?
1- Was your principled freedom righteous because the declaration said it is, or did the deceleration call them benevolent because they were benevolent before the declaration? Did the declaration give birth to the rights, or did it simply express them?
2- Every person who is skeptical of some or all of the declarations have the intellectual right to be given evidence that they are declarations that he/she should believe in. If there are logical arguments to be made in favor of these declarations to convince a rational person, it wouldn't matter whether some people don't believe in them. However, for some elites or 'intellectual' state that people should believe in them because they are written in a piece of paper is irrational.
3- Are these declarations exhaustive, in which you can't add or detract from it, or is it possible to change or modify them?
If that is the case, did humanity finally create perfection from human effort?
4- Why do you want these principles to be made universal?
Please show me that the morality you are advocating is not enforced consequentialism.
"Legislators who are principled under the notion of freedom, [...]"
You seem to be under the impression that: More freedom = Better. That is fallacious; so the best system is anarchy? On what basis do you limit freedom?
And let there be [arising] from you a nation inviting to [all that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be the successful. (Quran 3:104)
And among those We created is a community which guides by truth and thereby establishes justice. (Quran 7:181)
I guess we are in the same page:
Secularist constitution = No contradicting Islamic policies.
Islamic constitution = No contradicting Secular policies.
Otherwise, it is tyranny.
Also, what democracy? The thing never was never effective or fully applied, and will fail miserably with a larger population. The US is a republic. "Democracy" is a word used by demagogues to get people to vote for them.
"False again. It would be non-coherent to (a) claim tolerance while (b) exhibiting complete intolerance of dissent. [...]"
I believe I was fully transparent about my intolerance toward falsehood. Second of all, I stated that tolerance is relative depending on the behavior under question.
So you are intolerant toward intolerance of dissent because of dissent? Less self-refuting statements please.
That is how things work: Someone who believes in absolutes will take over those who don't believe in absolutes (those who advocate homosexuality do believe in absolutes, even if their belief has no rational basis). So how exactly are you going to prevent them without being totalitarian yourself?
There are dozens of non-morally neutral things humanbeings are not equal at, and they are definitely not materially equal. Treating everyone with absolute equality makes absolutely no sense. If some people are born with or develop wings, the only way to achieve equality is to either find some way to prevent wings from ever growing in future generations, or to clip them. Likewise, the beautiful needs to be scarred, the athlete needs to be crippled, the intelligent must be dumbed down, etc.
"That is again, completely false. Western culture is heavily based in Aristotelian logic, [...]"
Then please present a deductive argument, and explain how Western culture is: 1- not based on whims, 2- Believes in objective morality and can find it.
You might as well say that math is the source of morality; sure you can use math to help you not-steal, but you'll never get an equation that says "stealing is wrong", and even if you could there is no reason to follow it.
"Yes. No one is allowed to think thoughts which are not approved by the nomenklatura. [...]"
Of course they are allowed; spying is forbidden after all. However, Muslims prevent public immorality, and hence the spread of ideologies. You prefer quantity, and I prefer quality.
"Given the Hamas cartoon just this week of a mountain of Jewish skulls your claims are falsified by facts, [...]"
Again, more redherrings rather than addressing my statement. I am just wondering; if you don't want people to discuss your culture, then why are you discussing, say, Saudi culture?
"Your use of “God” is false; Islam subjugates mankind into denial of free will, [...]"
Interesting that the Aramaic word for "God" is "Allah", and it was used by Christians and Jews hundreds of years before Islam. In fact, He is immensely more deserving of the Capital G than the god described in the bible.
Allah gave us a degree of free will; hence we can sin. What denial are you talking about?
Who said that Allah didn't give us constrains without inhabiting our free will?
There are three major positions:
1- That when humans are born, they are neutral like a white page, or unshaped clay, and that the individual is the product of the environment.
2- That human beings are instinctively evil/born with sin, and that the environment is what reforms the person.
3- That human beings are born instinctively good, and that the environment can suppress that good or allow it to grow.
Humans have a physical and mental composition and they are interconnected; physical and mental health affect each other.
The first theory doesn't that humans have a general physical composition but that humans don't have a general mental composition and that it is a construct due to environment and society. However, here is the problem: If there is nothing that inherently determines the shapes the mental clay takes, then there is nothing that inherently determines the right and appropriate shape of the clay. Therefore, all economical, political, and social systems would be objectively equal.
I don't think anyone actually accepts that position due to their criticism of political or economical systems or social norms. Even Karl Marx kept calling Capitalism unnatural. Furthermore, this would mean that the term "mental illness" is meaningless.
The Prophet (PBUH) said, "Every child is born with a true faith of Islam (i.e. to worship none but Allah Alone) and his parents convert him to Judaism or Christianity or Magianism, as an animal delivers a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?" -Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2, Book 23, Hadith 467
And who said Allah have any need? You are simply making unjustified conclusions built upon arguments from ignorance.
If you disbelieve - indeed, Allah is Free from need of you. And He does not approve for His servants disbelief. And if you are grateful, He approves it for you; and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you about what you used to do. Indeed, He is Knowing of that within the breasts. (Quran 39:7)
Say, "My Lord has only forbidden immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed - and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know." (Quran 7:33)
"And again you completely fail to connect with the reality of western civilization. [...]"
People always have the choice to make these behaviors, Islam simply punishes them for making these choices. Opportunity and potential gain are influential factors when performing crimes. What is wrong with limiting these factors? And as I said, the Islamic system contains multiple components; the Prophet spent three years building Medina's community and social structure before punishments were implemented.
Great, so you follow Freud's view that it is always the fault of the environment, not the criminals themselves, and we should try to cure them? That one-tracked theory denies free will and moral responsibility, and it is demonstrably ineffective historically and false logically.
As for the Raif thing, since religion or ideology fulfils the role of "nationality", citizenship is not based on borders or being born in a specific area. Discarding the citizenship, or Islam, is self-evidently not acknowledged by a country. Furthermore, if someone leaving the whole religion is to be acknowledged, then there would be no right to not-acknowledge the absurdities of someone leaving part of the religion can produce, like saying: "I am a Muslim and I don't care what the Quran says; adultery is allowed!" or "I created a new version of Islam with no Zakat or prayer!". Thus, the constitution, or the Quran and Sunnah, loses its point.
"Your opinion here actually requires that criticism be equated definitionally with provocation upon the whim of random Islamists, [...]"
Incorrect; I explicitly stated that criticism is not the same as provocation, even though they can occur sequentially. Again, please demonstrate that they are for your argument to be coherent.
I don't acknowledge the actions of terrorists.
"This has to be the most rationally absurd statement possible to make, especially in the face of objective evidence. [...]"
I believe I was talking about Islamic societies, not bloody civil wars.
Perhaps you meant to address my last statement "only for the sake of stability..."?
"Ah. Reparations are necessary. [...]"
Reduction to absurdity; collective punishment based on guilt by association.
Of course, injustice toward certain blue-blooded whiteman classes are more worthy of attention than all other instances.
"It seems contradictory; one sect claims one truth, [...]"
"There are multiple scientific and historical theories, and since they contradict each other then all of them are false!". More incoherent statements.
I believe I addressed the rest of your statements above.
Bravo, Sir Serpent's Denture!
Each time you write, I can only marvel at the degree of incoherence you exhibit. I especially loved that you slipped some Atheo-Leftist Politically Correct ideology into that last one:
"Of course, injustice toward certain blue-blooded whiteman classes are more worthy of attention than all other instances."
Yes, I am one of the "whiteman" devils who will not accept that the adherents of "the religion of peace" want only to save me from myself and my delusions of free will, but REALLY:
"blue-blooded"???
This time you've really gone too far!
HATE SPEECH! HATE SPEECH! MUSLIM MICROAGGRESSION!!!
Why thank you, you always find a way to navigate a fishing boat through a gloomy day toward a bright beacon using your skillful use of speaking in opposites.
I am just saying, Africa deserves an international march or something, preferably one with less hypocrisy.
To summarize the difference between Islamic freedom and Western freedom:
{29} Allah presents an example: a slave owned by quarreling partners and another belonging exclusively to one man - are they equal in comparison? Praise be to Allah ! But most of them do not know.
{30} Indeed, you are to die, and indeed, they are to die.
{31} Then indeed you, on the Day of Resurrection, before your Lord, will dispute.
(Quran 39:29-31)
Enjoy your oligarchy.
Thank YOU, sir!
Yes, we are all "going to die!"
Free or slave, knight or knave
All will end, in the grave!
A very astute observation, vis-a-vis the "hypocrisy" of the "Je Suis Charlie" march of the political clowns and "freedom loving" poseurs. How long will this sense of "solidarity" against "terrorism" last? No longer than it takes for them to go home and change their sheep clothes for their wolves attire.
My position:
I loath Charlie Hebdo and everything they do as sophomoric juvenile puerile crap. I also abhor the very idea that anyone has a religious "right" to KILL any offender when offended in ANY way under any and all circumstances.
Perhaps there should be a march in Baga and Doron Baga, Nigeria, to be attended by His Imperial Majesty, King Obama the First, in protest of the devastation by Boko Haram?
Perhaps there should be a march in Chobok, Nigeria, to be attended by Queen Michelle "Marie Antoinette" Obama, in protest of the latest kidnapping of school girls by Boko Haram?
The only media restriction will be that no one is allowed to use the I-word or the M-word to connect "the religion of peace" to Boko Haram. After all, they are just a tiny, tiny, TINY wave in a vast and "peaceful" sea.
Otherwise, the Obamas will be nowhere to be found. There just aren't any first-class golf courses or gourmet five-star restaurants in Nigeria.
I most sincerely wish that I COULD enjoy the oligarchy. If only I were a "Progressive!" Unfortunately, I am intellectually predisposed toward support of the ideals embodied in the original U.S. Constitution, before it was twisted into its current pretzel shape by the amendments and "interpretations" (penumbras, emanations, "ships that go bump in the night") of those who would destroy it outright, if they thought they could do so without repercussion to themselves.
Here's another viewpoint on the "hypocrisy" of the Paris marchers for Charlie Hebdo:
The Real Scandals of the Paris March
The "money quote" is the ending paragraph:
"The rot in the West, its failure of cultural nerve and collapse of civilizational morale, will not be stopped by big talk and displays of communal emotion. To quote Churchill’s words in response to the Munich debacle, “This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time.” And that “stand” will require more than just words and marches."
My reply to Dragon Fang has become too long for this venue, so it has been posted as a new post.
The conclusion is this:
I think that perhaps a summary of differences between Islamic and western ideology can be seen in what they each defend:
Western ideology defends and preserves the freedom from dictator oppression, starting with the despotism of King George and extending to all totalitarian encroachments.
Islam defends and preserves the divine obligation to oppress heretics using barbaric methods which are justified as holy.
Post a Comment