The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Gottfried ArchiveBlogview
Real Islam and Democracy
shutterstock_539342122

During the last few months I’ve seen on TV and read in Newsmax the views of an earnest American patriot, Zudhi Jasser. A onetime naval officer, distinguished cardiologist and more recently, an inspired leader of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Dr. Yasser has been second to none in denouncing Islamicist terror and in exhorting his fellow-Muslims in the US and throughout the West to turn in suspected terrorists. It pains me to criticize such a decent fellow, but much of what I hear him saying about purifying Islam of Sharia and making Muslims accept “human rights,” “gender equality” and “secular governance” as part of their belief system is arrant nonsense. I make this point not because I wish to savage Islam, in either its Sunni or Shiite form, but because it is hard for me to imagine that anyone who accepts the claims of a traditional religion could in good conscience adopt Yasser’s position. Biblical or Koranic religion antedates by many centuries the modern principles or attitudes around which Yasser proposes to restructure his faith tradition (Yes, I have availed myself of this insipid commodified term).

A believer may try to accommodate himself to the new order but it is foolish to insist that his millennial faith and the rules that it enjoins are entirely compatible with the latest version of American liberal democracy. Why should a devout Muslim care if Dr. Jasser wishes to put him “on the right side of History”? Like Rabbinic Judaism or Canon Law, Sharia dictates a way of life for those who accept the authority of their faith. Are we to say, as Dr. Yasser sometimes seem to be suggesting, that pious Muslims should now accept only those of their precepts and injunctions that don’t conflict with the concept of democratic equality and with the ongoing feminist revolution?

I once had friends who were members of the American Council for Judaism. These friends would insist that Judaism, at least as they understood it, was a universal ethical religion that had nothing to do with accepting Israel as a homeland. From my own more thorough knowledge of the subject, it seemed to me that what they said was hot air. Being Jewish is about observing complicated dietary laws and rituals, which only in some cases have a relation to ethics. Moreover, there is no way that national identity can be viewed as extraneous to being Jewish. Jewish prayers and Hebrew Scriptures abound in references to Israel as the Jewish homeland. Jewish messianic hopes center on having all Jews return to Zion. While my friends in the American Council for Judaism were expressing feel-good sentiments, these sentiments do not belong to traditional Rabbinic Judaism. Like Yasser’s plan to make secular democratic equality the basis of Islamic religion, the ACJ was (and is) equating an inherited religious and communal faith with certain modern notions.

There is of course nothing wrong with groups disputing our late modern form of democracy or our current worship of the equality principle. I myself have been ripping into these idols, as an old-fashioned American constitutionalist, for many decades and can cite other authors who do the same. But there is a critical difference between me and those devout Muslims who are waging Jihad. My contrarian views do not lead me into being violent; nor do I have any desire to set up a caliphate on this continent or in Europe. What makes Muslims different from others who question certain modernist dogmas is the possibility that they may turn violent and that they may want to impose their way of life on others by force.

This certainly justifies the “extreme vetting” that President-elect Trump has suggested that Muslim visitors or incoming Muslim residents undergo. But it may be far more important to consider the potential for violence among those undergoing this investigation than whether they provide politically correct answers when asked about democracy and equality. Thomas Hobbes addresses this need for order in Leviathan, when he speaks about the conditions necessary to avoid civil strife: Anyone seeking to join civil society should have to give up his natural liberty and abide by the established order of the state to which he seeks admission. If there is reason to believe that the applicant will destroy the civil peace, then the political authorities shouldn’t admit him. And if those delegated to protect civil society decide for safety reasons not to accept visitors from dangerous regions, so be it. Sovereign nations do have this right and should be able to exercise it.

I’m also not sure how many correct answers the person interrogated will be expected to give in order to pass the “democracy” test. Let’s say the respondent doesn’t believe that women should vote (which was the situation in most American states up until less than a hundred years ago). Will the Muslim who expresses this once widespread judgment flunk the exam? What about accepting “marriage equality,” which the Clintons and President Obama didn’t accept until a few years ago, when they decided to impose it on the unwilling through judicial fiat? How much of the democratic belief system that now exists in the West will the Muslim respondent be expected to affirm in order to be let into this country?

This effort to make sure that Muslims entering the US fully affirm our “values” seems far less useful than the “loyalty oath” that public employees were expected to take in the 1950s, in order to prove that they weren’t Communists or Communist sympathizers. Unfortunately this oath, as formulated at the federal and state levels, never kept a Communist agent from lying. Or thoroughly hypocritical leftists who have never hesitated to shut up their opposition on the Right, from bellyaching about their loss of “civil liberties.” But unlike our democracy boosters, those who conceived of such oaths were being reasonable about what they demanded. They hoped to prevent those working in our universities and government from seeking the violent overthrow of the government. Every sovereign state has a right and indeed a duty to demand this of whomever it employs or lets in.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Islam, Political Correctness 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.

    • Replies: @TheJester

    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.
     
    And there won't be. Voting in a democracy asserts the human will above the Will of Allah (pbuh); it's blasphemy and anti-Islamic. If you want to know how Allah wants society organized, you do not vote on it, you research it ... via Islamic scholars. Law comes from Allah as pronounced in the Quran and certified by the scholars. The key point is that the Quran is the word of Allah, not the interpreted word of God as in the Christian Bible that leaves room for honest differences of opinion.

    Okay, that takes are of voting and legislatures. Now, what about the executive? Since laws are researched and pronounced by the Islamic scholars, the only thing remaining is for the scholars to legitimize a strong man to enforce these laws. It's like the town council hiring the sheriff.

    Islamic communities in Western Europe and the United States have no choice but to follow Sharia Law and the Islamic organization of the state. That's what it means to be Muslim. Saudi Arabia represents the epitome of the Islamic state, with the Wahhabi scholars legitimizing the Saudi Royal family to enforce the Will of Allah. Yes, many Muslims prefer to live the western way of life. They are bad Muslims, just as Catholics who divorce and remarry, practice abortion, and willfully commit the Seven Deadly Sins are bad Catholics.

    I've heard Muslims described as "married monks". There is truth to that. Living under Islam is like living in a monastery under the Rule of Saint Benedict -- with both Saint Benedict and Mohammed living in the same historical era. Monastics who disobey the Rule threaten the monastic community. They are apostates who have to be eliminated. The catch is that people have no choice but to live in Islamic monasteries. Allah has spoken; that is the way that Allah mandates that society be organized.

    However, in practice, Muslims like to escape their monasteries and monastic way of life on vacations to the West. This is where Muslim men can drink, gamble, and whore and Muslim women can wear bikinis. I've visited a number of Islamic homes in Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East where I was shown family photos from their last European vacation -- beer stein in hand and bikini on the beach. I also accompanied many Muslims on business trips to the West. I couldn't keep up with them ... the partying. Having worked, lived, and traveled in the Middle East for 14 years, I finally got out of the business when I had had enough of Islamic culture, especially the pervasive hypocrisy wrapped within superficial piety.

    As summary, there is no room in Islamic culture for individual freedom and personal conscience, at least while living in the monastery ... and there is no escaping the monastery because the the monastery is the state. That's captured in the word "Islam", which means submission or surrender to the Will of Allah as communicated to us in the Quran.

    Muslim immigrants will without question be spreading their monastic way of life and Sharia Law throughout Europe and the Americas. They have too. That's what it means to be Muslim (although as a practical matter they will then find it hard to find places to vacation and party).
    , @Wizard of Oz
    How do you rate Tunisia as democracy? On a par with Paraguay? Ecuador? Lebanon?

    And how does consideration of Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan (all in 2016) affect your general proposition? Also Turkey and Bosnia?

    , @Greasy William
    The girl in the pic is hot.

    I really like Muslim girls but as I grow older I think that Latinas are hotter. I would currently rank the races like this in terms of female looks:

    1. Latinas
    2. Iranian
    3. Pakistani/Indian
    4. Arab
    5. Slavic
    6. Armenian/Chechen/Georgian/Turkish
    7. Southern Euro
    8. Ethiopian
    9. Nordic
    10. Western/Central Euro
    11. Northeast Asian
    , @jake
    And the first post here totally misses the point of the article.
    , @MEexpert

    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.

     

    Arabs are not the only Muslims.

    Please define what you think democracy is? US is not considered a democracy. It is a republic. Israel is considered a democracy but it does not practice democracy rules. It does not even have a constitution and makes up laws as it goes along outlawing all the rights for the minority palestinians. If you define democracy where people vote, then there are many Muslim countries where people vote and are considered democratic. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Iran are some. You may call Iran theocratic but there are direct elections for the President (without electoral college) and the parliament.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/real-islam-and-democracy/#comment-1711568
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Turkey is probably the best example of the probably irresolvable conflict between Islam and representative government as presently practiced in western Europe and the U.S. Kemal Ataturk was a great man, but the ideas of even a great man can be flawed.

    I see no reason to admit any Muslims at all, save accredited diplomats of Muslim countries, and a few businessmen, students and tourists on short-term visas with regular reporting to the immigration authorities. They are, in a community of any number, fundamentally incompatible with the western European/white American way of life and system of government, and they offer no knowledge, skills and abilities that cannot be developed indigenously.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "They are, in a community of any number, fundamentally incompatible with the western European/white American way of life and system of government, and they offer no knowledge, skills and abilities that cannot be developed indigenously."

    You are so out of touch with reality. Are you just a parody of False News Stories?

    http://www.newsweek.com/do-muslims-easily-assimilate-american-society-509673
  3. This guy is about as knowledgeable as a fire hydrant.

    If you want to know what the issues are for modern Muslims, here is a good place to begin, the New Age Islam website:

    http://www.newageislam.com/

  4. Will the Muslim who expresses this once widespread judgment flunk the exam? What about accepting “marriage equality,” which the Clintons and President Obama didn’t accept until a few years ago, when they decided to impose it on the unwilling through judicial fiat? How much of the democratic belief system that now exists in the West will the Muslim respondent be expected to affirm in order to be let into this country?

    The gambit of “extreme vetting” seems superficially attractive, but, as you point out, would be impossible to implement with reliability. Sure the applicants would simply lie, but it would be more likely that the DHS admin would either waive or subvert the rigor of the vetting.
    The one harsh irony of selecting only socially liberal applicants from nations with high % of Muslims is that it would seem to be a sure fire way to recruit anti-European, open borders globalists in the mold of Fareed Zakaria, Aziz Ansari, Neera Tanden, & Jeet Heer.

    In light of the breakdown of the American assimilationism, the whole “extreme vetting” seems analagous to taking Aspirin to fix a broken bone.

  5. Well, perhaps worshipers of ‘democracy’ should end their pro-democracy jihad first, and leave the rest of the world to practice whatever political and ethical systems they find suitable for them. Diversity, y’know. Live and let live. And then, perhaps, all these problems will just disappear and the issues or ‘vetting’ and oaths and what-not will become moot…

    Just a thought…

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Well, perhaps worshipers of ‘democracy’ should end their pro-democracy jihad first, and leave the rest of the world to practice whatever political and ethical systems they find suitable for them.
     
    True, but I also wish they'd just shuddup. Most of the true believers know nothing about democracy or whatever it is they imagine democracy is.

    Funny how that crowd seems to have the answers for everyone, yet don't know anything about minding their own flippin business.

    I thought UNZ was better than this.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    In general terms it is easy to agree but do you have any comment on the comparatively recently floated "responsibility to protect? And if North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons and wasn't maintained by China as a buffer zone would you hesitate to encourage the South to liberate its wtetched people? And can oppression of women or minorities, get to the point when, if you can do it easily without great bloodshed, overthrowing the oppressors becomes like marching into your neighbour's garden where a drunken man his beating up his wife and forcing him to desist. I am I suppose assuming that lack of enough of the basic rights assumed appropriate to a modern state is equivalent to lack of democracy from a moral pointbof view.

    Then - and not a priori before the protective engagement - you have to consider how the place is to be run in future by and for its inhabitants. Not ready for democracy (too primitive or too much diversity for example)? It looks as though the mandate system of regulated empire should be allowed a part until.... what? Adequately civilised democracy? Partition between irreconcilable groups (and what if honest non PC judgment is that one lot can make democracy work but the other lot can't)?

    If you don't try and be your international brother's keeper ever you are going to have to decide what to do about refugees, possibly in vast numbers.

    Certainly the ideal needs to be tempered by realism, beyond the obvious question for democracies like the US of the willingness of voters to pay the price and exhibit the needed stamina and persistence. The first Gulf War was conducted with sensible restraint and nothing more was attempted than the US could certainly accomplish without ridiculous waste of lives or resources.
  6. What makes Muslims different from others who question certain modernist dogmas is the possibility that they may turn violent and that they may want to impose their way of life on others by force.

    I stopped reading right there.

    OK, yeah, if you say so. Have you looked around, lately? Josephus’ “Wars of the Jews” is chock full of “Jewish” violence for all kinds of reasons. Lots of it, in fact, describes “intra-Jewish” violence.

    Look up his descriptions of the treacherous behavior of the (Jewish)Sicarii and also the forced conversions of the Idumeans and forced circumcisions of others. Yeah, so you qualified your statement with the word, “modernist.” What makes you think anything has changed for the better in that regard since Josephus’ time?

    While I haven’t heard of any forced mass conversions to Judaism in modern times, I am aware that the attitude is just to wipe ‘em all out instead.

    The author should be ashamed for writing a comment like that. Utterly brainless because of the feeble attempt to point the finger at Muslims only.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
    All Religions are intrinsically dogmatic and intolerant. They have to be if they can have any internal standing as a repository of revealed truth. With that being said Christianity has had its reformation, and there are many secular Jews who do not buy into religious orthodoxy. Islam, unfortunately, has not had a reformation and apostasy remains a capital crime in the Islamic world. Hence, intolerance is the order of the day.

    Islam is different than the other religions, primarily because its adherents are a little too serious about their faith.
    , @MarkinLA
    There is nothing that can force Islam to coincide with modern thinking so it will always have large numbers of people who will take the Koran literally.

    The problem with letting any foreign group of people in is what could be called critical mass. When that population is small they will conform to the rules the majority abide by to get by. Once their population goes above a certain percent then there will be endless calls for them to be allowed to keep their foreign ways (their human rights) - as we already see in Britain and France. When that happens even those that were indifferent to their old thinking will see it as a vehicle to improve their lot and suddenly become born again, in many cases, even more fervent than those who started the push for their rights.
  7. Don’t worry about Islam Sharia law being imposed on the USA, Congress already sanctioned Judaism’s Noahide Laws to rule over us GOY back in 1991.

    • Replies: @Rich
    That is one of the funniest videos I've ever seen. There's no way anyone can believe that, is there?
  8. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, perhaps worshipers of 'democracy' should end their pro-democracy jihad first, and leave the rest of the world to practice whatever political and ethical systems they find suitable for them. Diversity, y'know. Live and let live. And then, perhaps, all these problems will just disappear and the issues or 'vetting' and oaths and what-not will become moot...

    Just a thought...

    Well, perhaps worshipers of ‘democracy’ should end their pro-democracy jihad first, and leave the rest of the world to practice whatever political and ethical systems they find suitable for them.

    True, but I also wish they’d just shuddup. Most of the true believers know nothing about democracy or whatever it is they imagine democracy is.

    Funny how that crowd seems to have the answers for everyone, yet don’t know anything about minding their own flippin business.

    I thought UNZ was better than this.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Most of the true believers know nothing about democracy or whatever it is they imagine democracy is.
     
    Well, to what extent the pro-democracy jihadists are actually true believers -- or lairs and hacks for hire, that's a matter of significant controversy...
  9. @jacques sheete

    What makes Muslims different from others who question certain modernist dogmas is the possibility that they may turn violent and that they may want to impose their way of life on others by force.
     
    I stopped reading right there.

    OK, yeah, if you say so. Have you looked around, lately? Josephus' "Wars of the Jews" is chock full of "Jewish" violence for all kinds of reasons. Lots of it, in fact, describes "intra-Jewish" violence.

    Look up his descriptions of the treacherous behavior of the (Jewish)Sicarii and also the forced conversions of the Idumeans and forced circumcisions of others. Yeah, so you qualified your statement with the word, "modernist." What makes you think anything has changed for the better in that regard since Josephus' time?

    While I haven't heard of any forced mass conversions to Judaism in modern times, I am aware that the attitude is just to wipe 'em all out instead.

    The author should be ashamed for writing a comment like that. Utterly brainless because of the feeble attempt to point the finger at Muslims only.

    All Religions are intrinsically dogmatic and intolerant. They have to be if they can have any internal standing as a repository of revealed truth. With that being said Christianity has had its reformation, and there are many secular Jews who do not buy into religious orthodoxy. Islam, unfortunately, has not had a reformation and apostasy remains a capital crime in the Islamic world. Hence, intolerance is the order of the day.

    Islam is different than the other religions, primarily because its adherents are a little too serious about their faith.

    • Replies: @Anon

    Islam, unfortunately, has not had a reformation
     
    Islam doesn't need a Reformation because it is already protestant.
    , @MarkinLA
    It is also different because there is no recognized leader such as a Pope or Patriarch who can change the direction of the religion and the faithful have to abide by his decision.

    How can there be a reformation when anybody can stand up and accuse somebody else (the reformer) of apostasy and if he gets enough followers kill the apostate.
    , @raphee
    It is people who are intolerant, not religions. We can see this intolerance even in the comments of liberals..."basket of deplorable" anyone. And even the threads here are full of people so full of themselves and their favorite ideologies that they'll happily bash Muslims without even having lived with them.

    Btw, apostasy is not a capital crime in the Quran. There is considerable difference of opinion amongst Islamic scholars on this point. Like I said, it's people.

    I agree with you that Islam does need a Islamic Reformation. For that Western imperialism and experimental democracy ( using their favorite bogeymen, kings, dictators, assorted and selected Democrats) has to end.
  10. Most of us have been raised either in Judaism or Christianism or Islam. For us the corner stone of our lives is to comply with God’s requirements according to our holy books. Most of our leaders Jews, Christians or Muslims are requesting us to obey, trust the books and their teaching. They are not trying to help us to understand the nature of God, his attributes and his functions nor the eventual possibility to communicate with Him, and how to establish this communication. They want to keep us in obedience. Their God is essentially an arbitrary tyran.
    Regarding this subject, there is no difference between the 3 religions except the management. Most of us from one religion are considering the others as pagans, goyim etc.. Most of us concerning religion is narrow minded and does not want to be disturb. Most of us concerning religion have a pharisee attitude, meaning: willing to look like a good and respectful citizen within his community. There are no bridge between those communities, it is impossible to belong to 2 or 3 religions.

    The New World Order called democracy ,which wants to run the whole world, would like to melt all those three groups because they do not like the “polyphony”. They are dead wrong and they will fail, for they cannot replace God even a false one by a void.

  11. If Muslim societies don’t want democracy, then that’s their business. What’s the big deal? Given what they see democracy has done to the west, maybe that sentiment is justified.

    And if I’m not mistaken, Zudhi Jasser is considered a “fake Muslim” by many Muslims.

  12. @anon
    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.

    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.

    And there won’t be. Voting in a democracy asserts the human will above the Will of Allah (pbuh); it’s blasphemy and anti-Islamic. If you want to know how Allah wants society organized, you do not vote on it, you research it … via Islamic scholars. Law comes from Allah as pronounced in the Quran and certified by the scholars. The key point is that the Quran is the word of Allah, not the interpreted word of God as in the Christian Bible that leaves room for honest differences of opinion.

    Okay, that takes are of voting and legislatures. Now, what about the executive? Since laws are researched and pronounced by the Islamic scholars, the only thing remaining is for the scholars to legitimize a strong man to enforce these laws. It’s like the town council hiring the sheriff.

    Islamic communities in Western Europe and the United States have no choice but to follow Sharia Law and the Islamic organization of the state. That’s what it means to be Muslim. Saudi Arabia represents the epitome of the Islamic state, with the Wahhabi scholars legitimizing the Saudi Royal family to enforce the Will of Allah. Yes, many Muslims prefer to live the western way of life. They are bad Muslims, just as Catholics who divorce and remarry, practice abortion, and willfully commit the Seven Deadly Sins are bad Catholics.

    I’ve heard Muslims described as “married monks”. There is truth to that. Living under Islam is like living in a monastery under the Rule of Saint Benedict — with both Saint Benedict and Mohammed living in the same historical era. Monastics who disobey the Rule threaten the monastic community. They are apostates who have to be eliminated. The catch is that people have no choice but to live in Islamic monasteries. Allah has spoken; that is the way that Allah mandates that society be organized.

    However, in practice, Muslims like to escape their monasteries and monastic way of life on vacations to the West. This is where Muslim men can drink, gamble, and whore and Muslim women can wear bikinis. I’ve visited a number of Islamic homes in Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East where I was shown family photos from their last European vacation — beer stein in hand and bikini on the beach. I also accompanied many Muslims on business trips to the West. I couldn’t keep up with them … the partying. Having worked, lived, and traveled in the Middle East for 14 years, I finally got out of the business when I had had enough of Islamic culture, especially the pervasive hypocrisy wrapped within superficial piety.

    As summary, there is no room in Islamic culture for individual freedom and personal conscience, at least while living in the monastery … and there is no escaping the monastery because the the monastery is the state. That’s captured in the word “Islam”, which means submission or surrender to the Will of Allah as communicated to us in the Quran.

    Muslim immigrants will without question be spreading their monastic way of life and Sharia Law throughout Europe and the Americas. They have too. That’s what it means to be Muslim (although as a practical matter they will then find it hard to find places to vacation and party).

    • Replies: @Wally
    Right. And that's why "that shitty little country" has Jews Only policies.
    , @raphee
    I agree with you that Muslims same as other religions are not ideal representatives of their religion. But why is this bar so high for Muslims. The bar should be high for those who are in the business of spreading the religion like mullahs, priests, rabbis and so on, but the average Muslim will cheat, lie, do some good and some bad.

    As to the rest of your answer I would respectfully differ. Saudi Arabia is no epitome of Islamic civilization or legal/religious system of Islam. You offer the worst example since it suits your argument. In fact historically the greatest Islamic scholars and theologians have ended up in jail for opposing the government of the time. Examples abound__ Imam Abu Hanifa, shafi, Malik, and Imam Hanbal, the Four Great Imams all ended up behind bars.

    However, i agree that Muslim countries shouldn't be enamored of Western democracy. They should borrow the best ideas of tolerance and equality before law etc, and eventually come up with a system that suits them.

  13. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @lavoisier
    All Religions are intrinsically dogmatic and intolerant. They have to be if they can have any internal standing as a repository of revealed truth. With that being said Christianity has had its reformation, and there are many secular Jews who do not buy into religious orthodoxy. Islam, unfortunately, has not had a reformation and apostasy remains a capital crime in the Islamic world. Hence, intolerance is the order of the day.

    Islam is different than the other religions, primarily because its adherents are a little too serious about their faith.

    Islam, unfortunately, has not had a reformation

    Islam doesn’t need a Reformation because it is already protestant.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Shia Islam has a well defined clerical hierarchy, liberals including notably Stephen Colbert, like to compare it to Catholicism.

    http://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2014/spring/vali-nasr-profile/
  14. Thought-provoking piece. Gottfried notes several things that I have wondered about but rarely seen discussed, e.g. the incompatibility of modern multiculturalist and egalitarian values not only with traditional Islam, but other traditional religions as well. At the same time, he notes that traditional Islam does seem to suffer from more violent tendencies, though I’m sure if you look through history you can find examples of violent expansionism in Judaism (a good portion of the Old Testament, for starters) and Christianity (Baltic Crusades, the conquest of New Spain). So I guess you could conclude that a modern liberal democracy might find a way to coexist peacefully with traditionalist communities of Jews and Christians, but will always live under threat from a community of traditionalist Muslims in its midst.

    Violent Judaism today seems focused on maintaining and strengthening Jewish hegemony in historic Palestine. Whether or not you think this is just towards the Palestinians, it is still very locally directed, and consequently any nation that stays out of Israel’s way in the Middle East is sure to be safe from Jewish violence. I see practically no evidence for violent Christianity these days, except perhaps in Russia’s fight to keep control over Muslim border territories like Chechnya; America’s wars for democracy seem to have nothing to do with advancing or defending Christendom, and indeed seem to have had the opposite effect, as far as Iraqi and Syrian Christians are concerned. Only violent Islam seems alive and well and outwardly focused.

    As a libertarian, I would quibble with Hobbes’ dichotomy between civil order and natural liberty. A true civil order respects natural liberty, since natural liberty can be defined as doing what you want, as long as you don’t harm another. Universal observation of this principle would obviously result in universal peace and concord. Clearly Hobbes meant something else, i.e. submission to the aggressions and depredations of the State in order to ensure peace among those governed by the State. But the State is not held to the same standards; while private citizens are forbidden from murder and stealing, agents of the State may commit those crimes with impunity. Whether this results in universal civil peace is questionable.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    "as a libertarian..." Libertarians are either drug addicts and/or sex perverts. You have a libertarian state in which you could live - Somalia? What do you think about IQ?
    , @pelagic
    "A true civil order respects natural liberty"

    Respects natural liberty or demands that this be the sole ruling principle of society?

    "... since natural liberty can be defined as doing what you want, as long as you don’t harm another. Universal observation of this principle would obviously result in universal peace and concord. "

    "Natural liberty" and "freedom" mean little outside of community and an ordered social fabric. Concepts of freedom and liberty would not even occur to an individual without such a contextual reference.

    A "universal" libertarianism seems to be about denying and avoiding the tradition of recognized moral virtues. Without a shared morality, which necessarily will violate personal freedoms, there is only legalism to hold down a civic and civil existence. Under libertarianism, your freedom runs into trouble as soon as it bumps into my freedom-- we are in conflict or disagreement long before another is harmed, per se.

    As others have said, libertarianism is the logical end point of liberalism. It is mainly suited to those who hold their autonomy and the fulfillment of their personal desires above all other values.

  15. July 07, 2014 57 Years Ago: U.S. and Britain Approved Use of Islamic Extremists to Topple Syrian Government

    BBC reports that – in 1957 – the British and American leaders approved the use of Islamic extremists and false flag attacks to topple the Syrian government:
    Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, Britain and America sought a secretive “regime change” in another Arab country… by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures.
    Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 [former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom] Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria’s pro-western neighbours, and then to “eliminate” the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/57-years-ago-u-s-and-britain-approved-use-of-islamic-extremists-to-topple-syrian-government/5390279

  16. ‘Religious Freedom is our First Freedom’

    The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

    Amendment I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

  17. @anon
    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.

    How do you rate Tunisia as democracy? On a par with Paraguay? Ecuador? Lebanon?

    And how does consideration of Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan (all in 2016) affect your general proposition? Also Turkey and Bosnia?

    • Replies: @frayedthread
    Of the 6 countries you cited, 3 have orchestrated nasty genocides against non-Muslim minorities. They can all go hang.
    , @Maj. Kong
    Indonesia would be the best example of an Islamic country following Western norms about representative government. But its important to note the continuing practice of mysticism among Muslims in that country, which mainstream Sunnis find aghast. The Wahhabi aligned factions are notable, and are calling for the execution of a Christian governor in Jakarta.

    The other two are roughly illiberal democracies, with Malaysia having a sizeable non-Muslim minority mostly isolated from real political power.

    Turkey is an autocracy. Whether Kemalist, Gulen or Erdogan. They are unrepentant about what they did to the Armenians.
    , @anon
    Well, according to Freedom House, Tunisia now rates as a free country. That is exactly ONE out of TWENTY-TWO Arab countries. It has only JUST become one. We will see how long that lasts. Frankly I am not holding my breath.

    None of the other countries you mention are Arabic so I don't see what your point is. I was referring SPECIFICALLY to Arab states. I personally believe there is something in Arabs INDEPENDENT of Islam that makes them socially and culturally inimical to democracy, freedom, rights for women, etc. Just my opinion sport.
  18. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, perhaps worshipers of 'democracy' should end their pro-democracy jihad first, and leave the rest of the world to practice whatever political and ethical systems they find suitable for them. Diversity, y'know. Live and let live. And then, perhaps, all these problems will just disappear and the issues or 'vetting' and oaths and what-not will become moot...

    Just a thought...

    In general terms it is easy to agree but do you have any comment on the comparatively recently floated “responsibility to protect? And if North Korea didn’t have nuclear weapons and wasn’t maintained by China as a buffer zone would you hesitate to encourage the South to liberate its wtetched people? And can oppression of women or minorities, get to the point when, if you can do it easily without great bloodshed, overthrowing the oppressors becomes like marching into your neighbour’s garden where a drunken man his beating up his wife and forcing him to desist. I am I suppose assuming that lack of enough of the basic rights assumed appropriate to a modern state is equivalent to lack of democracy from a moral pointbof view.

    Then – and not a priori before the protective engagement – you have to consider how the place is to be run in future by and for its inhabitants. Not ready for democracy (too primitive or too much diversity for example)? It looks as though the mandate system of regulated empire should be allowed a part until…. what? Adequately civilised democracy? Partition between irreconcilable groups (and what if honest non PC judgment is that one lot can make democracy work but the other lot can’t)?

    If you don’t try and be your international brother’s keeper ever you are going to have to decide what to do about refugees, possibly in vast numbers.

    Certainly the ideal needs to be tempered by realism, beyond the obvious question for democracies like the US of the willingness of voters to pay the price and exhibit the needed stamina and persistence. The first Gulf War was conducted with sensible restraint and nothing more was attempted than the US could certainly accomplish without ridiculous waste of lives or resources.

    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    Most of the Muslims world only "oppresses" their women and minority to the same extent most societies have throughout history. Let them find their own way.
    , @frankie p
    As usual, there's something backwards in your thinking:

    "If you don’t try and be your international brother’s keeper ever you are going to have to decide what to do about refugees, possibly in vast numbers."

    In practical terms, we should state this as the opposite, for it is when you DO TRY to be your international brother's keeper that the refugees start flowing; witness Europe today. I guess it's partly inaccurate to say that the illegal immigrants from MENA are as a result of the west trying to be their international brother's keeper; the west justifies their destablization of the region on their lip service to R2P, but we know the REAL reason for it. The chosen country doesn't want any rising power that could challenge its current military superiority in the area, so the countries must be destroyed, cut up into easily controlled "statelets", and here we go on our merry way into the future.

    And let's be honest, Wizard, you have NEVER supported the "civilized" countries of the west going into Israel and forcing the drunk Israelis, proven land thieves of the native population, to stop oppressing their minorities and beating their wives.

    @Who made you God: "Then – and not a priori before the protective engagement – you have to consider how the place is to be run in future by and for its inhabitants."

    You are not thinking deeply; you are contributing to the problem, not working towards solving it. You're still hiding behind the curtain, pretending to be a wizard when you're actually just a mediocre human.

    Frankie P
  19. Jan 10, 2016 Iranian Muslim Meets Jesus and Many Other Iranians Come to Jesus

    Pastor Afshin Javid is from Iran. He was a Hezbollah soldier. When he was in jail, he casted out evil spirit in the name of Jesus. That made him more confused. Two weeks later, he met Jesus personally and his sins was forgiven. Jesus showed him that many people who carried the sins. Jesus asked him to tell the people. Many Muslims and many Iranians are coming to Jesus all around the world through the dreams and vision. Jesus is the way, truth and the life. No one come to heaven except through Jesus Christ!

  20. @lavoisier
    All Religions are intrinsically dogmatic and intolerant. They have to be if they can have any internal standing as a repository of revealed truth. With that being said Christianity has had its reformation, and there are many secular Jews who do not buy into religious orthodoxy. Islam, unfortunately, has not had a reformation and apostasy remains a capital crime in the Islamic world. Hence, intolerance is the order of the day.

    Islam is different than the other religions, primarily because its adherents are a little too serious about their faith.

    It is also different because there is no recognized leader such as a Pope or Patriarch who can change the direction of the religion and the faithful have to abide by his decision.

    How can there be a reformation when anybody can stand up and accuse somebody else (the reformer) of apostasy and if he gets enough followers kill the apostate.

  21. @jacques sheete

    What makes Muslims different from others who question certain modernist dogmas is the possibility that they may turn violent and that they may want to impose their way of life on others by force.
     
    I stopped reading right there.

    OK, yeah, if you say so. Have you looked around, lately? Josephus' "Wars of the Jews" is chock full of "Jewish" violence for all kinds of reasons. Lots of it, in fact, describes "intra-Jewish" violence.

    Look up his descriptions of the treacherous behavior of the (Jewish)Sicarii and also the forced conversions of the Idumeans and forced circumcisions of others. Yeah, so you qualified your statement with the word, "modernist." What makes you think anything has changed for the better in that regard since Josephus' time?

    While I haven't heard of any forced mass conversions to Judaism in modern times, I am aware that the attitude is just to wipe 'em all out instead.

    The author should be ashamed for writing a comment like that. Utterly brainless because of the feeble attempt to point the finger at Muslims only.

    There is nothing that can force Islam to coincide with modern thinking so it will always have large numbers of people who will take the Koran literally.

    The problem with letting any foreign group of people in is what could be called critical mass. When that population is small they will conform to the rules the majority abide by to get by. Once their population goes above a certain percent then there will be endless calls for them to be allowed to keep their foreign ways (their human rights) – as we already see in Britain and France. When that happens even those that were indifferent to their old thinking will see it as a vehicle to improve their lot and suddenly become born again, in many cases, even more fervent than those who started the push for their rights.

  22. There are plenty of beliefs that are inherently intolerant.

    “Democracy,” despite the label, is one of them. Those who yammer in favor of the idol known as “democracy” especially as it’s used today, are no better than your average religious fundamentalist.

    Mao nailed it thusly…

    Well, perhaps worshipers of ‘democracy’ should end their pro-democracy jihad first, and leave the rest of the world to practice whatever political and ethical systems they find suitable for them.

    Islam is different than the other religions, primarily because its adherents are a little too serious about their faith.

    Same can be said about those who effectivley put their faith in or “worship” virtually any political system and history provides endless examples.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Naah. You can support representative democracy in the West and sharia in Arabic countries. It's up to the people in each nation to decide--and that includes popular revolution. It's just none of our business to tell people in other countries how to run their country unless they're threatening us.
  23. @jacques sheete

    Well, perhaps worshipers of ‘democracy’ should end their pro-democracy jihad first, and leave the rest of the world to practice whatever political and ethical systems they find suitable for them.
     
    True, but I also wish they'd just shuddup. Most of the true believers know nothing about democracy or whatever it is they imagine democracy is.

    Funny how that crowd seems to have the answers for everyone, yet don't know anything about minding their own flippin business.

    I thought UNZ was better than this.

    Most of the true believers know nothing about democracy or whatever it is they imagine democracy is.

    Well, to what extent the pro-democracy jihadists are actually true believers — or lairs and hacks for hire, that’s a matter of significant controversy…

    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Well, to what extent the pro-democracy jihadists are actually true believers — or lairs and hacks for hire, that’s a matter of significant controversy…
     
    True enough. I'm sure it's some of both plus other motivations as well.

    I should change that to "true spouters" or something. ;)

    In any case, you nailed it.
  24. Muslims had been living peacefully in the United States for 125+ years. The Nation of Islam was founded on the idea the Islam was a religion of peace versus Christianity. What changed? Perhaps the overthrow of the democratically elected, Mohammad Mosaddegh, President of Iran, to secure Iranian oil for the British- American company helped? Perhaps, the entry of a basically European culture into Palestine helped? Maybe American desire for worldwide hegemony including the middle east helped? Maybe our killing of so many Muslim grandmothers, uncles and children finally tipped the scales? Maybe stopping all this anti-Muslim crap for awhile might help? You think?

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Muslims had been living peacefully in the United States for 125+ years.

    Yeah, at 0.1% of the population. As long as they were small they kept their heads down like the illegal Mexicans.
    , @SFG
    Actually, I agree, but given the current situation, why import more of them?
    , @anon
    Historically the Muslim immigrant population in the USA was almost zero. What few Muslims there later were, were black American converts, not immigrants as such. Nor can anyone seriously argue that Muslims or Arabs have ever made a major contribution to America, (or anywhere else) for that matter.
  25. Gottfried once again speaking with the unsentimental voice of reason to a world chained in pathos and wishful thinking. Is the pearls before swine aphorism rabbinical in origin?

    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Gottfried once again speaking with the unsentimental voice of reason
     
    So it's "the unsentimental voice of reason" ya want eh?

    Here's a dose;deal with it.

    Humans are flawed creatures. All of us. No need to yack and wank over religions. No need to single one out, either.

    We all would do well to clean our own laundry first.

    And do you really think his braying about democracy is in any way the voice of reason? Explain.

  26. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Dr Jasser represents a very small minority who could only do this within the security of the west. Were he to be a resident in a Muslim country then the clock would be ticking down on his life expectancy. There’s lots of factions making claims for what Islam ‘really’ is and various governments have acted to shape it. Trying to influence it from the west is pretty hopeless. The real way forward for the Muslim world to modernize is for it to become secular and relegate Islam to being viewed as a historical artifact. As it is it’s an impediment to progress. The truth is that it’s all nonsense, a cult surrounding a caravan robber, slaver and bloody conquerer who claimed to have visions. There’s no progress in that. It belongs in a museum. Insofar as what sort of political system best suits the people of the various Muslim countries then that remains to be seen. It’s for them to develop and organize themselves. Throwing the word ‘democracy’ around is like shaking a voodoo fetish doll in the air thinking it has some magical effect. One can’t have democracy in a society where the political culture has been stunted for centuries. Outside interference whether being sat on top of by exploitative Ottomans or being assigned borders by western outsiders hasn’t helped them go forward.

  27. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Most of the true believers know nothing about democracy or whatever it is they imagine democracy is.
     
    Well, to what extent the pro-democracy jihadists are actually true believers -- or lairs and hacks for hire, that's a matter of significant controversy...

    Well, to what extent the pro-democracy jihadists are actually true believers — or lairs and hacks for hire, that’s a matter of significant controversy…

    True enough. I’m sure it’s some of both plus other motivations as well.

    I should change that to “true spouters” or something. ;)

    In any case, you nailed it.

  28. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    How can you write so well, Mr. Gottfried?

    I don’t mean the content (which I like a lot too), but the form.

    In order for it to survive, religion needs to adapt. This is done while keeping up the pretense that the same orthodoxy has been maintained since the beginning, but it has never been true.
    As the political and cultural entities they are, religious faiths evolve and adapt.

    There’s a stage in which such adaptation turns the religion in a non-religion: this is the stage of the Christian faith in the West.
    Science and rationalism will leave little to no space to the previous religion if these don’t accept to agree with science and rationalism more salient points.

    The people who say there’s no conflict between secularism orthodoxy and their old-age religious faiths are probably aware of the truth, but seek a compromise, to save of the religion dear to them what can be saved.

    The scene becomes unsightly when theology is adapted too, by conceptual and rhetorical antics.
    But as long as the cultural, social, political face of a religion is updated to keep it, well, relevant, I see nothing wrong with it.

  29. @Tulip
    Gottfried once again speaking with the unsentimental voice of reason to a world chained in pathos and wishful thinking. Is the pearls before swine aphorism rabbinical in origin?

    Gottfried once again speaking with the unsentimental voice of reason

    So it’s “the unsentimental voice of reason” ya want eh?

    Here’s a dose;deal with it.

    Humans are flawed creatures. All of us. No need to yack and wank over religions. No need to single one out, either.

    We all would do well to clean our own laundry first.

    And do you really think his braying about democracy is in any way the voice of reason? Explain.

  30. @jtgw
    Thought-provoking piece. Gottfried notes several things that I have wondered about but rarely seen discussed, e.g. the incompatibility of modern multiculturalist and egalitarian values not only with traditional Islam, but other traditional religions as well. At the same time, he notes that traditional Islam does seem to suffer from more violent tendencies, though I'm sure if you look through history you can find examples of violent expansionism in Judaism (a good portion of the Old Testament, for starters) and Christianity (Baltic Crusades, the conquest of New Spain). So I guess you could conclude that a modern liberal democracy might find a way to coexist peacefully with traditionalist communities of Jews and Christians, but will always live under threat from a community of traditionalist Muslims in its midst.

    Violent Judaism today seems focused on maintaining and strengthening Jewish hegemony in historic Palestine. Whether or not you think this is just towards the Palestinians, it is still very locally directed, and consequently any nation that stays out of Israel's way in the Middle East is sure to be safe from Jewish violence. I see practically no evidence for violent Christianity these days, except perhaps in Russia's fight to keep control over Muslim border territories like Chechnya; America's wars for democracy seem to have nothing to do with advancing or defending Christendom, and indeed seem to have had the opposite effect, as far as Iraqi and Syrian Christians are concerned. Only violent Islam seems alive and well and outwardly focused.

    As a libertarian, I would quibble with Hobbes' dichotomy between civil order and natural liberty. A true civil order respects natural liberty, since natural liberty can be defined as doing what you want, as long as you don't harm another. Universal observation of this principle would obviously result in universal peace and concord. Clearly Hobbes meant something else, i.e. submission to the aggressions and depredations of the State in order to ensure peace among those governed by the State. But the State is not held to the same standards; while private citizens are forbidden from murder and stealing, agents of the State may commit those crimes with impunity. Whether this results in universal civil peace is questionable.

    “as a libertarian…” Libertarians are either drug addicts and/or sex perverts. You have a libertarian state in which you could live – Somalia? What do you think about IQ?

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Well, I'm neither a drug addict or a sex pervert, so I guess your assertion is wrong. Somalia's nadir was right after the highly centralizing and totalitarian dictatorship of Siad Barre ended in the early 1990s and has actually improved a lot since then without a single central government. I don't know what IQ has to do with the discussion.
  31. Jews and Muslims are incompatible and unacceptable in Caucasian Christian, neopagan societies.

  32. @TheJester

    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.
     
    And there won't be. Voting in a democracy asserts the human will above the Will of Allah (pbuh); it's blasphemy and anti-Islamic. If you want to know how Allah wants society organized, you do not vote on it, you research it ... via Islamic scholars. Law comes from Allah as pronounced in the Quran and certified by the scholars. The key point is that the Quran is the word of Allah, not the interpreted word of God as in the Christian Bible that leaves room for honest differences of opinion.

    Okay, that takes are of voting and legislatures. Now, what about the executive? Since laws are researched and pronounced by the Islamic scholars, the only thing remaining is for the scholars to legitimize a strong man to enforce these laws. It's like the town council hiring the sheriff.

    Islamic communities in Western Europe and the United States have no choice but to follow Sharia Law and the Islamic organization of the state. That's what it means to be Muslim. Saudi Arabia represents the epitome of the Islamic state, with the Wahhabi scholars legitimizing the Saudi Royal family to enforce the Will of Allah. Yes, many Muslims prefer to live the western way of life. They are bad Muslims, just as Catholics who divorce and remarry, practice abortion, and willfully commit the Seven Deadly Sins are bad Catholics.

    I've heard Muslims described as "married monks". There is truth to that. Living under Islam is like living in a monastery under the Rule of Saint Benedict -- with both Saint Benedict and Mohammed living in the same historical era. Monastics who disobey the Rule threaten the monastic community. They are apostates who have to be eliminated. The catch is that people have no choice but to live in Islamic monasteries. Allah has spoken; that is the way that Allah mandates that society be organized.

    However, in practice, Muslims like to escape their monasteries and monastic way of life on vacations to the West. This is where Muslim men can drink, gamble, and whore and Muslim women can wear bikinis. I've visited a number of Islamic homes in Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East where I was shown family photos from their last European vacation -- beer stein in hand and bikini on the beach. I also accompanied many Muslims on business trips to the West. I couldn't keep up with them ... the partying. Having worked, lived, and traveled in the Middle East for 14 years, I finally got out of the business when I had had enough of Islamic culture, especially the pervasive hypocrisy wrapped within superficial piety.

    As summary, there is no room in Islamic culture for individual freedom and personal conscience, at least while living in the monastery ... and there is no escaping the monastery because the the monastery is the state. That's captured in the word "Islam", which means submission or surrender to the Will of Allah as communicated to us in the Quran.

    Muslim immigrants will without question be spreading their monastic way of life and Sharia Law throughout Europe and the Americas. They have too. That's what it means to be Muslim (although as a practical matter they will then find it hard to find places to vacation and party).

    Right. And that’s why “that shitty little country” has Jews Only policies.

    • Replies: @Anon
    So that's a thing that Israel does right, then?
  33. @Robert Magill
    Muslims had been living peacefully in the United States for 125+ years. The Nation of Islam was founded on the idea the Islam was a religion of peace versus Christianity. What changed? Perhaps the overthrow of the democratically elected, Mohammad Mosaddegh, President of Iran, to secure Iranian oil for the British- American company helped? Perhaps, the entry of a basically European culture into Palestine helped? Maybe American desire for worldwide hegemony including the middle east helped? Maybe our killing of so many Muslim grandmothers, uncles and children finally tipped the scales? Maybe stopping all this anti-Muslim crap for awhile might help? You think?

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Muslims had been living peacefully in the United States for 125+ years.

    Yeah, at 0.1% of the population. As long as they were small they kept their heads down like the illegal Mexicans.

  34. This is the key point:

    it is hard for me to imagine that anyone who accepts the claims of a traditional religion could in good conscience adopt [liberal democracy]

    Since “democracy” as a practical matter means “system like that in the US” and since the system in the US is a degraded plutocracy devoted to the public worship of money, sex, and (temporal) power, democracy is obviously incompatible with any religion other than Satanism. The distinguishing characteristic of Islam in the modern world is that it is the sole major religion not yet to fall before the onslaught of “democracy.” The right question for, say, a Christian to ask, vis a vis Islam, is “what can we learn from them?”

    Obviously, that doesn’t mean we should invite a bunch of them to the US (we shouldn’t). But “they hate us for our freedoms” is a compliment to “they.”

    • Agree: Mao Cheng Ji
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    ...well, sort of agree. I think it's perfectly fine for the US to be a plutocracy devoted to the public worship of money, etc. Whatever turns you on, as they say. Or, as Russians say: some like the priest, and some the priest's daughter...
  35. @Wizard of Oz
    In general terms it is easy to agree but do you have any comment on the comparatively recently floated "responsibility to protect? And if North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons and wasn't maintained by China as a buffer zone would you hesitate to encourage the South to liberate its wtetched people? And can oppression of women or minorities, get to the point when, if you can do it easily without great bloodshed, overthrowing the oppressors becomes like marching into your neighbour's garden where a drunken man his beating up his wife and forcing him to desist. I am I suppose assuming that lack of enough of the basic rights assumed appropriate to a modern state is equivalent to lack of democracy from a moral pointbof view.

    Then - and not a priori before the protective engagement - you have to consider how the place is to be run in future by and for its inhabitants. Not ready for democracy (too primitive or too much diversity for example)? It looks as though the mandate system of regulated empire should be allowed a part until.... what? Adequately civilised democracy? Partition between irreconcilable groups (and what if honest non PC judgment is that one lot can make democracy work but the other lot can't)?

    If you don't try and be your international brother's keeper ever you are going to have to decide what to do about refugees, possibly in vast numbers.

    Certainly the ideal needs to be tempered by realism, beyond the obvious question for democracies like the US of the willingness of voters to pay the price and exhibit the needed stamina and persistence. The first Gulf War was conducted with sensible restraint and nothing more was attempted than the US could certainly accomplish without ridiculous waste of lives or resources.

    Most of the Muslims world only “oppresses” their women and minority to the same extent most societies have throughout history. Let them find their own way.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You implicitly raise, without answering, the question of how we who want to preach or, having sufficient power, to decide what moral improvements in the world should be spread widely should weigh their importance - and how far the individual should be made the beneficiary of moral improvement. (Even Western Christian countries for whom all were equal in God's sight were permanently left with the problem of where you draw the line that protects children from bad parents).

    Why shouldn't we apply your argument to slavery? And were the British wrong to ban widow burning in Hindu India? Granted that those Scots who thought the fuddy duddy paternalistic Imperial government which wanted to limit free trade and the right of their citizens to smoke as much opium as they liked took a line that went out of fashion but they were capitalist predators rather than highminded statesmen. But yes, in an age where high minded statesmen are hard to discover and Angela Merkel has given us some clue about what some of them might do on a bad hair day maybe we should listen to Sancho Panza and decline to mount our high horses most days.

  36. @attilathehen
    "as a libertarian..." Libertarians are either drug addicts and/or sex perverts. You have a libertarian state in which you could live - Somalia? What do you think about IQ?

    Well, I’m neither a drug addict or a sex pervert, so I guess your assertion is wrong. Somalia’s nadir was right after the highly centralizing and totalitarian dictatorship of Siad Barre ended in the early 1990s and has actually improved a lot since then without a single central government. I don’t know what IQ has to do with the discussion.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    You may be the exception concerning drugs/sex but your IQ/reasoning abilities are questionable.

    The average Somalian IQ is 68. There is no government or even a normal society in Somalia because of their IQ (ever heard of Somali terrorists?). Please read the "Bell Curve" and it shows that a country/society needs a minimum IQ of 90 to be civilized. Blacks/Asians have the lowest IQs. Caucasians have the highest IQs. Libertarians are possessed by the insane idea that people (left alone) can band together and form free, functioning societies.

    Also, we have Somalians in Minnesota. How are they working out for the USA? Why aren't they trying to convince Democratic, socialistic Minnesotans to get rid of their state government? Why are almost all of them welfare dependents?

    Why aren't American libertarians trying to get to know the Minnesota Somalis so they can find out about the libertarian state in Somalia and how we can bring it to the USA?

    , @Bill jones
    Agree
  37. All this because grown adults can’t stop believing ancient books of fairy stories.

  38. So called extreme vetting is a joke. Incoming Muslims will just learn to tell us what we want to hear. They’ll just say “yes, yes, I luv merica, I luv duhmocracy” and their applications will be stamped approved, be handed their Trump “MAGA” cap and sent on their merry way. Before long there will be cheat sheets and pamphlets going around on how to defeat the vetting process.

    “Racist” U.S. immigration policy largely excludes people who fit the racial and genetic profile of America’s founding stock. That would be like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan favoring Christians and Buddhists over Muslim immigrants by a 4:1 ratio. That would never happen, but might if they put Jews in charge of their immigration policies.

    It’s patently unwise and disaster courting to import large numbers of people who differ in race/ethnicity, customs, culture, temperament, religion and general world outlook. Muslims obviously fall into this category since our borders were opened with the helping hand of Gottfried’s ethnic forbears, but other groups do as well including many Jews. These things used to matter in the consideration of incoming immigrants and refugees but no longer and it will be at this nation’s peril.

    This only sets the stage for current and future conflict and America will not be immune to these centrifugal forces no matter how free our market is, now matter how much legal pot we smoke together and regardless of what the multicultural fundamentalists on both sides of the aisle believe.

  39. @Bill
    This is the key point:

    it is hard for me to imagine that anyone who accepts the claims of a traditional religion could in good conscience adopt [liberal democracy]
     
    Since "democracy" as a practical matter means "system like that in the US" and since the system in the US is a degraded plutocracy devoted to the public worship of money, sex, and (temporal) power, democracy is obviously incompatible with any religion other than Satanism. The distinguishing characteristic of Islam in the modern world is that it is the sole major religion not yet to fall before the onslaught of "democracy." The right question for, say, a Christian to ask, vis a vis Islam, is "what can we learn from them?"

    Obviously, that doesn't mean we should invite a bunch of them to the US (we shouldn't). But "they hate us for our freedoms" is a compliment to "they."

    …well, sort of agree. I think it’s perfectly fine for the US to be a plutocracy devoted to the public worship of money, etc. Whatever turns you on, as they say. Or, as Russians say: some like the priest, and some the priest’s daughter…

  40. @Jason Liu
    Most of the Muslims world only "oppresses" their women and minority to the same extent most societies have throughout history. Let them find their own way.

    You implicitly raise, without answering, the question of how we who want to preach or, having sufficient power, to decide what moral improvements in the world should be spread widely should weigh their importance – and how far the individual should be made the beneficiary of moral improvement. (Even Western Christian countries for whom all were equal in God’s sight were permanently left with the problem of where you draw the line that protects children from bad parents).

    Why shouldn’t we apply your argument to slavery? And were the British wrong to ban widow burning in Hindu India? Granted that those Scots who thought the fuddy duddy paternalistic Imperial government which wanted to limit free trade and the right of their citizens to smoke as much opium as they liked took a line that went out of fashion but they were capitalist predators rather than highminded statesmen. But yes, in an age where high minded statesmen are hard to discover and Angela Merkel has given us some clue about what some of them might do on a bad hair day maybe we should listen to Sancho Panza and decline to mount our high horses most days.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    You implicitly raise, without answering, the question of how we who want to preach or, having sufficient power, to decide what moral improvements...
     
    Here's your answer.:


    Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.

    Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding.

    The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

    -Rabbi Hillel the Elder

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/hillel.html

     

    In JS's vernacular, the aphorism is, "Tidy your own shorts first." And yeah, I realize it's Quixote-like.
    , @Singh
    Did the British ban Sati a voluntary response to invasion or prolong it by trying to create child prostitutes out of widows।।

    Moreover did they do this of own accord or listen to reformers।।

    You forget the muslims also hated Sati it prevented the rape of widows।।We understand you're a Savage with no traditions & you wish to take our own by defiling & corrupting our women & children।।
    It is truly glorious & hilarious that the same pakis & bengalis you sacrificed your nation to protect are now gang raping your daughters & grandmothers।।

    Dirty Anglo-christian savages such as yourself forget that celts had a similar practice & Vedas ban Sati women commit it anyway।।A feminized anglo saxon jute whose shitty tiny little island gets demographically replaced every 5 centuries won't understand।।

    Sati existed in Bengal due to melech untouchables like brits & nawabs being in power।।

    I understand you're a Protestant and will only understand when nukes cleanse London & Nyc of untouchable anglo filth।।

    That's fine & good day to you and your pakistani rape gangs।। :)

    ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਹਿ।।
  41. There is of course nothing wrong with groups disputing our late modern form of democracy or our current worship of the equality principle.

    There is nothing democratic about the installation of homosexual marriage in America.

    It was done by force in a court – not by a vote of the people.

  42. I simply don’t understand the immigration policy atm. people are struggling to find jobs. and the people in charge think it is a good idea to import more unskilled labor.

  43. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” This impresses me as having been written in response to problems specific to a time and place – and being not only inadequate for, but antithetical to, what America, after 200 extra years of scientific learning and progress, now needs in order to preserve its secular rights and freedoms.
    Though all religions pose problems for our societies, it’s obvious that Islam is currently the most dangerous. I think the only sensible course of action is to enact laws which prevent the practices, by any and all religions, which infringe on the rights and freedoms we stand for. Then our countries can welcome some select immigrants, including Muslims, that we carefully vet and who agree to reject the parts of their religion that we will not abide. If they do not live up to their word, they should be legally prosecuted. In this way we can help some of those who are trapped into religions and practices they want to escape from, while we still remain strong and protect ourselves and the rights and freedoms that so many have worked and fought for. Also, we should move quickly to clean sources of energy and back out of our involvement in the middle east in every way except for maintaining diplomacy and building a strong and sophisticated intelligence network capable of taking out terrorist threats to our countries and citizens.
    In the meantime, I think we should set up, in conjunction with the EU and UN, temporary refugee centers – for carefully vetted genuine refugees only – somewhere outside europe and America. The need for sanctuary from danger does not imply the need for residence in the countries granting it.

  44. @Wizard of Oz
    You implicitly raise, without answering, the question of how we who want to preach or, having sufficient power, to decide what moral improvements in the world should be spread widely should weigh their importance - and how far the individual should be made the beneficiary of moral improvement. (Even Western Christian countries for whom all were equal in God's sight were permanently left with the problem of where you draw the line that protects children from bad parents).

    Why shouldn't we apply your argument to slavery? And were the British wrong to ban widow burning in Hindu India? Granted that those Scots who thought the fuddy duddy paternalistic Imperial government which wanted to limit free trade and the right of their citizens to smoke as much opium as they liked took a line that went out of fashion but they were capitalist predators rather than highminded statesmen. But yes, in an age where high minded statesmen are hard to discover and Angela Merkel has given us some clue about what some of them might do on a bad hair day maybe we should listen to Sancho Panza and decline to mount our high horses most days.

    You implicitly raise, without answering, the question of how we who want to preach or, having sufficient power, to decide what moral improvements…

    Here’s your answer.:

    Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: “Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.

    Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding.

    The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.”

    -Rabbi Hillel the Elder

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/hillel.html

    In JS’s vernacular, the aphorism is, “Tidy your own shorts first.” And yeah, I realize it’s Quixote-like.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Interesting that quixotic ("Quixote like") can be ambiguous. You use it in the sense of unrealistically optimistic but when quixotic tendencies lead to high minded foreign adventures I would say it is time for Sancho Panza to counsel his master in common sense.
  45. @Wizard of Oz
    How do you rate Tunisia as democracy? On a par with Paraguay? Ecuador? Lebanon?

    And how does consideration of Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan (all in 2016) affect your general proposition? Also Turkey and Bosnia?

    Of the 6 countries you cited, 3 have orchestrated nasty genocides against non-Muslim minorities. They can all go hang.

  46. I agree that one can’t filter immigrants/visitors based on self-reported values: they will lie. But one can filter based on observed behavior–in particular, are their womenfolk covered?

    Once in our country, they can be held to a higher standard. The apparatus of repression currently used against white, Christian, heterosexual males could be redirected against people with Islamist leanings. Hate speech laws would be especially useful.

    • Replies: @Inque Yutani
    Ask them to toss a copy of the Quran into a fire. Like the fumi-e test for secret Christians in old Japan.
  47. And there won’t be. Voting in a democracy asserts the human will above the Will of Allah (pbuh); it’s blasphemy and anti-Islamic. If you want to know how Allah wants society organized, you do not vote on it, you research it … via Islamic scholars. Law comes from Allah as pronounced in the Quran and certified by the scholars. The key point is that the Quran is the word of Allah, not the interpreted word of God as in the Christian Bible that leaves room for honest differences of opinion.

    There are no examples of Muhammed’s followers voting on anything? Of deliberating on anything? Of representatives deliberating or voting? I find that hard to believe.

    More to the point, is there any injunction against democracy, or representative democracy?

    Having worked, lived, and traveled in the Middle East for 14 years, I finally got out of the business when I had had enough of Islamic culture, especially the pervasive hypocrisy wrapped within superficial piety.

    This seems to be a common feature of SWANA populations. Jesus was famous for his injunctions against the legalism of Judaism. And Jews haven’t exactly distanced themselves from that characterization in the time since.

    As summary, there is no room in Islamic culture for individual freedom and personal conscience, at least while living in the monastery … and there is no escaping the monastery because the the monastery is the state. That’s captured in the word “Islam”, which means submission or surrender to the Will of Allah as communicated to us in the Quran.

    My impression is that Muslims do most of their escaping in their own homes. There seems to be strong tradition of “a man’s home is his castle” in Islam, based on a Koranic passge about the sin of prying eyes. I’m always on lookout for stories about Muslim regimes violating this, but I never find any. Granted, the information flow from Muslim countries isn’t a rich one. I do know that westerners in Saudi Arabia do seem to understand that their “debauchery” will go along just fine, as long as it remains in western compounds. I also recently read a story about the elderly gent from the UK, living in SA, who made his own wine in his home. He got away with it for years, until one night he agreed to deliver some of it to a friend…

    , though I’m sure if you look through history you can find examples of violent expansionism in Judaism (a good portion of the Old Testament, for starters) and Christianity (Baltic Crusades, the conquest of New Spain).

    Sorry, this is tendentious, and always will be. Islam, like the other Abrahamic faiths, is a matter of Scripture, first and foremost. The Scriptures of Christianity do not have Christians as military conquerors, or Christianity’s founders as such, and it is not spread through military action. At all. On the contrary, Christ is a strikingly peaceful figure, in terms of physical violence.

    Islam, on the other hand, was explicitly spread by the sword, by the very hand of its Prophet and his followers. In fact, violent jihad and plunder was their way of life. Very much in contrast to Christianity, violence is absolutely baked into the Muslim cake.

    A Christian can point to the Baltic Crusades, the conquest of the New World, etc., wag his finger, and cry, “sin! Heretic!”

    A Muslim who claimed that spreading Islam by violence was a sin, or an inherently heretical act, could probably be rightly tried and executed under Islamic law.

    onsequently any nation that stays out of Israel’s way in the Middle East is sure to be safe from Jewish violence.

    A fine distinction that might be lost on the people killed by Israel’s shelling of civilian populations.

    How do you rate Tunisia as democracy? On a par with Paraguay? Ecuador? Lebanon?

    And how does consideration of Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan (all in 2016) affect your general proposition? Also Turkey and Bosnia?

    Good questions. Anon said there had never been a democratic Arab country – maybe the problem is not Islam, but Arabs.

    The one harsh irony of selecting only socially liberal applicants from nations with high % of Muslims is that it would seem to be a sure fire way to recruit anti-European, open borders globalists in the mold of Fareed Zakaria, Aziz Ansari, Neera Tanden, & Jeet Heer.

    Another would be that the policy would tend to drain Muslim countries of their “reformers.”

    It is also different because there is no recognized leader such as a Pope or Patriarch who can change the direction of the religion and the faithful have to abide by his decision.

    How can there be a reformation when anybody can stand up and accuse somebody else (the reformer) of apostasy and if he gets enough followers kill the apostate.

    It shares this condition with Protestant Christianity and Judaism. Catholics would seem to be the exception here, not the rule.

    All this because grown adults can’t stop believing ancient books of fairy stories.

    Liberal democracy seems to be the biggest fairy tale of them all. The Delusion of Human Equality being their most treasured. How nuts do you have to be to believe in that tripe? And they don’t even have an ancient book, to keep them honest. And then there’s their hatred of all other fairy tales and religions (competition, you see), which leads them to all sorts of mischief. And consider how much suffering they’ve caused, simply with their refusal to accept human nature (“can’t stop believing ancient books of fairy stories”), and their unending crusade against it. It would seem to be obvious that it is human nature to believe in “fairy tales,” and the “liberal” response is to crusade against human nature.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Pretty decent set of replies there.

    However, despite the fact that "The Scriptures of Christianity do not have Christians as military conquerors, or Christianity’s founders as such, and it is not spread through military action," there is plenty of evidence that so called "Christianity" at least was sometimes spread through the use of violence.

    The Spanish Empire for one used that excuse extensively as did the US. In fact, the US went into the Philippines to "Christianize those "heathens" even though they had been under Christian domination for almost two centuries before the US was even a country.

    Additionally, Josephus tells us that the Jews aalso employed military action and forced conversions.

    So the argument that Islam is inherently evil because violence is supposedly written into its founding documents while the other big religions are free of that taint seems specious in practice. In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.

    , @MarkinLA
    It shares this condition with Protestant Christianity and Judaism. Catholics would seem to be the exception here, not the rule.

    I believe each Orthodox sect has a Patriarch. The Anglican Church has a historic leader (The Royal Monarch) the actual leader (The Archbishop of Canterbury) and a hierarchy. To my knowledge other Protestant denominations do as well. Even the Mormons, although every now and then some old fart tired of banging his wife decides to start a "fundamentalist" sect so he can start banging teenagers again.

    Anybody in Islam can declare himself an Imam. In Iran you have the Mullahs but they have no ability to affect anything outside of Iran.
  48. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Yeah, yeah, same old, same old, BS. Real Islam… Democracy…

    What value is democracy when it can elect evil like Trump, Modi, Duterte …?

    How many Muslims has the evil west allowed to be *democratically* elected to serve their peoples? Remember Iran, Egypt?

    -

    Now, chew of the following;

    West: Our inventions are glorious, our discoveries are glorious, our cities are glorious, our democracies are glorious, our bodies are glorious… What do you have (or done)?

    True Muslims: Nothing worldly perhaps, but we sure have the Tawhid. You can keep everything in this world, as long as the hereafter is for us. We have Heaven to look forward to, you have Hell.

    • Replies: @anon
    I don't know sport. I see Muslims inviting themselves to western countries all the time. That says a lot right there.
  49. @Cato
    I agree that one can't filter immigrants/visitors based on self-reported values: they will lie. But one can filter based on observed behavior--in particular, are their womenfolk covered?

    Once in our country, they can be held to a higher standard. The apparatus of repression currently used against white, Christian, heterosexual males could be redirected against people with Islamist leanings. Hate speech laws would be especially useful.

    Ask them to toss a copy of the Quran into a fire. Like the fumi-e test for secret Christians in old Japan.

  50. @Wizard of Oz
    How do you rate Tunisia as democracy? On a par with Paraguay? Ecuador? Lebanon?

    And how does consideration of Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan (all in 2016) affect your general proposition? Also Turkey and Bosnia?

    Indonesia would be the best example of an Islamic country following Western norms about representative government. But its important to note the continuing practice of mysticism among Muslims in that country, which mainstream Sunnis find aghast. The Wahhabi aligned factions are notable, and are calling for the execution of a Christian governor in Jakarta.

    The other two are roughly illiberal democracies, with Malaysia having a sizeable non-Muslim minority mostly isolated from real political power.

    Turkey is an autocracy. Whether Kemalist, Gulen or Erdogan. They are unrepentant about what they did to the Armenians.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. It does leave me still wondering how far our understanding should weight being Arabic as against being Muslim. And tends to confirm my strong view that the US sonce 1990 at latest should have been putting pressure on the Saudis to quit funding Wahabi evangelism.
  51. “hard for me to imagine that anyone who accepts the claims of a traditional religion could in good conscience adopt Yasser’s position”

    nail meet head……this is the FACT…..either you “submit” to Allah or you don’t. Same with all religions which are a form of mass hypnosis.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    nail meet head……this is the FACT…..either you “submit” to Allah or you don’t. Same with all religions which are a form of mass hypnosis.
     
    It's the same with the de facto religion known as democracy. Either you submit or you don't.

    I'm not sure whether it's a result or a cause of mass hypnosis but in practice it certainly appears to be a manifestation of mass delusion.

  52. @Anon

    Islam, unfortunately, has not had a reformation
     
    Islam doesn't need a Reformation because it is already protestant.

    Shia Islam has a well defined clerical hierarchy, liberals including notably Stephen Colbert, like to compare it to Catholicism.

    http://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2014/spring/vali-nasr-profile/

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Iran is basically the center of the Shia. How much influence do the mullahs in Iran have over the Shia elsewhere? I don't think they have much.
    , @MEexpert
    For one thing the "Real Islam" and "Muslim Behavior" are two different things. The Real Islam is already moderate and does not need reform. According to Qur'an, the religion (Islam) was perfected in the life time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Shia Islam is the Real Islam.

    After the death of Muhammad (PBUH), people who had accepted Islam to gain power did so. They were not entitled to the leadership. They killed whoever opposed them, just like ISIS of today. To gain acceptance by the people, whatever they did they called it Islam and thus political Islam was born. That is why we have two versions. One is the real one and the other is the political Islam. Political Islam is unjust, tyrannical and oppressive. In real Islam everyone has rights including the women. Remember, Islam is the first religion that gave inheritance rights to women 1500 years ago.

    If all Muslims followed the "Real Islam" we can have true democracy, as long as, it is within the Qur'anic guidelines.
    , @sarz
    There are a number of leading Shia religious authorities, and there is a measure of choice in selecting whoever you feel is the best for you. At present, particularly outside Iran, the status of Grand Ayatollah Sistani is probably the highest. A friend who attended an audience with him mentions that a group of immigrants to America were worried about how to bring up their children. The ayatollah said it was important that they blend into the general society, and, for example, send their children to public schools. It was important also to get religious instruction every week.
  53. As a moderate nationalist I find the most disturbing aspect of modern Islam is the idea of developing a global caliphate. This seems to be the modern Islamic equivalent of western globalism/ultra-liberalism. This is also the primary reason why I oppose the spread of Muslim culture in the West. It’s just another example of modern globalists trying to trample over local customs and undermining national sovereignty.

    • Replies: @Singh
    Its the Mosaic distinction in action।।

    Liberalism, Marxism, Jew, Islam & Xtian।।

    Allegory say our god is true all others false।।

    Pagans have translatability which leads to coexistence & indifference।।

    It's up to Aryas to destroy Mosaic distinction।।
    , @Wizard of Oz
    How can you treat the ISIS aspiration for a global caliphate as equivalent to the push to spread "western style globalism/ultra-liberalism**" except in some minimalist areas of verbal comparability such as something as trite as actually believing the world would be a better place if everyone accepted their principles?

    ** whatever that is
  54. @Svigor

    And there won’t be. Voting in a democracy asserts the human will above the Will of Allah (pbuh); it’s blasphemy and anti-Islamic. If you want to know how Allah wants society organized, you do not vote on it, you research it … via Islamic scholars. Law comes from Allah as pronounced in the Quran and certified by the scholars. The key point is that the Quran is the word of Allah, not the interpreted word of God as in the Christian Bible that leaves room for honest differences of opinion.
     
    There are no examples of Muhammed's followers voting on anything? Of deliberating on anything? Of representatives deliberating or voting? I find that hard to believe.

    More to the point, is there any injunction against democracy, or representative democracy?

    Having worked, lived, and traveled in the Middle East for 14 years, I finally got out of the business when I had had enough of Islamic culture, especially the pervasive hypocrisy wrapped within superficial piety.
     
    This seems to be a common feature of SWANA populations. Jesus was famous for his injunctions against the legalism of Judaism. And Jews haven't exactly distanced themselves from that characterization in the time since.

    As summary, there is no room in Islamic culture for individual freedom and personal conscience, at least while living in the monastery … and there is no escaping the monastery because the the monastery is the state. That’s captured in the word “Islam”, which means submission or surrender to the Will of Allah as communicated to us in the Quran.
     
    My impression is that Muslims do most of their escaping in their own homes. There seems to be strong tradition of "a man's home is his castle" in Islam, based on a Koranic passge about the sin of prying eyes. I'm always on lookout for stories about Muslim regimes violating this, but I never find any. Granted, the information flow from Muslim countries isn't a rich one. I do know that westerners in Saudi Arabia do seem to understand that their "debauchery" will go along just fine, as long as it remains in western compounds. I also recently read a story about the elderly gent from the UK, living in SA, who made his own wine in his home. He got away with it for years, until one night he agreed to deliver some of it to a friend...

    , though I’m sure if you look through history you can find examples of violent expansionism in Judaism (a good portion of the Old Testament, for starters) and Christianity (Baltic Crusades, the conquest of New Spain).
     
    Sorry, this is tendentious, and always will be. Islam, like the other Abrahamic faiths, is a matter of Scripture, first and foremost. The Scriptures of Christianity do not have Christians as military conquerors, or Christianity's founders as such, and it is not spread through military action. At all. On the contrary, Christ is a strikingly peaceful figure, in terms of physical violence.

    Islam, on the other hand, was explicitly spread by the sword, by the very hand of its Prophet and his followers. In fact, violent jihad and plunder was their way of life. Very much in contrast to Christianity, violence is absolutely baked into the Muslim cake.

    A Christian can point to the Baltic Crusades, the conquest of the New World, etc., wag his finger, and cry, "sin! Heretic!"

    A Muslim who claimed that spreading Islam by violence was a sin, or an inherently heretical act, could probably be rightly tried and executed under Islamic law.

    onsequently any nation that stays out of Israel’s way in the Middle East is sure to be safe from Jewish violence.
     
    A fine distinction that might be lost on the people killed by Israel's shelling of civilian populations.

    How do you rate Tunisia as democracy? On a par with Paraguay? Ecuador? Lebanon?

    And how does consideration of Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan (all in 2016) affect your general proposition? Also Turkey and Bosnia?
     
    Good questions. Anon said there had never been a democratic Arab country - maybe the problem is not Islam, but Arabs.

    The one harsh irony of selecting only socially liberal applicants from nations with high % of Muslims is that it would seem to be a sure fire way to recruit anti-European, open borders globalists in the mold of Fareed Zakaria, Aziz Ansari, Neera Tanden, & Jeet Heer.
     
    Another would be that the policy would tend to drain Muslim countries of their "reformers."

    It is also different because there is no recognized leader such as a Pope or Patriarch who can change the direction of the religion and the faithful have to abide by his decision.

    How can there be a reformation when anybody can stand up and accuse somebody else (the reformer) of apostasy and if he gets enough followers kill the apostate.
     
    It shares this condition with Protestant Christianity and Judaism. Catholics would seem to be the exception here, not the rule.

    All this because grown adults can’t stop believing ancient books of fairy stories.
     
    Liberal democracy seems to be the biggest fairy tale of them all. The Delusion of Human Equality being their most treasured. How nuts do you have to be to believe in that tripe? And they don't even have an ancient book, to keep them honest. And then there's their hatred of all other fairy tales and religions (competition, you see), which leads them to all sorts of mischief. And consider how much suffering they've caused, simply with their refusal to accept human nature ("can't stop believing ancient books of fairy stories"), and their unending crusade against it. It would seem to be obvious that it is human nature to believe in "fairy tales," and the "liberal" response is to crusade against human nature.

    Pretty decent set of replies there.

    However, despite the fact that “The Scriptures of Christianity do not have Christians as military conquerors, or Christianity’s founders as such, and it is not spread through military action,” there is plenty of evidence that so called “Christianity” at least was sometimes spread through the use of violence.

    The Spanish Empire for one used that excuse extensively as did the US. In fact, the US went into the Philippines to “Christianize those “heathens” even though they had been under Christian domination for almost two centuries before the US was even a country.

    Additionally, Josephus tells us that the Jews aalso employed military action and forced conversions.

    So the argument that Islam is inherently evil because violence is supposedly written into its founding documents while the other big religions are free of that taint seems specious in practice. In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.

    • Replies: @another fred

    ... there is plenty of evidence that so called “Christianity” at least was sometimes spread through the use of violence.
     
    Quite true, but one has to look at history. Christianity started out as a groups of various sects that stood apart from the state until Constantine made it the Roman state religion (and began persecuting the "unorthodox"). It was spread in Germanic Europe by means of a "translation" called the Heliand in which Jesus was presented as a Germanic warrior and the Apostles as his Thanes.

    Malachi Martin wrote an interesting book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church that explored Roman Catholicism's relationship to secular power. You would probably find it interesting.

    So the argument that Islam is inherently evil because violence is supposedly written into its founding documents while the other big religions are free of that taint seems specious in practice.
     
    I would argue that it is not a matter of good and evil, but of the ability of the religion (taken as a symbolic monolith) to deal with the violent portion of its population.

    Christianity has a body of scripture that, taken as a whole, rejects violence as a means to accomplish "God's will". Devout, but peaceful, Muslims are particularly handicapped in that matter due to the clear example of Muhammad's life and the Koran. The jihadis have a large body of scripture and tradition on their side.
  55. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wizard of Oz
    How do you rate Tunisia as democracy? On a par with Paraguay? Ecuador? Lebanon?

    And how does consideration of Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan (all in 2016) affect your general proposition? Also Turkey and Bosnia?

    Well, according to Freedom House, Tunisia now rates as a free country. That is exactly ONE out of TWENTY-TWO Arab countries. It has only JUST become one. We will see how long that lasts. Frankly I am not holding my breath.

    None of the other countries you mention are Arabic so I don’t see what your point is. I was referring SPECIFICALLY to Arab states. I personally believe there is something in Arabs INDEPENDENT of Islam that makes them socially and culturally inimical to democracy, freedom, rights for women, etc. Just my opinion sport.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You're retarded then since "Arab" isn't a genetic group, hence genetic basis for such an elusive shared trait to be against freedom and democracy is impossible a priori. Tunisians for one are Berber not Arab genetically.
    Keep on your circlejerk though.
  56. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Yeah, yeah, same old, same old, BS. Real Islam... Democracy...

    What value is democracy when it can elect evil like Trump, Modi, Duterte ...?

    How many Muslims has the evil west allowed to be *democratically* elected to serve their peoples? Remember Iran, Egypt?

    -

    Now, chew of the following;

    West: Our inventions are glorious, our discoveries are glorious, our cities are glorious, our democracies are glorious, our bodies are glorious... What do you have (or done)?

    True Muslims: Nothing worldly perhaps, but we sure have the Tawhid. You can keep everything in this world, as long as the hereafter is for us. We have Heaven to look forward to, you have Hell.

    I don’t know sport. I see Muslims inviting themselves to western countries all the time. That says a lot right there.

  57. @interesting
    "hard for me to imagine that anyone who accepts the claims of a traditional religion could in good conscience adopt Yasser’s position"

    nail meet head......this is the FACT.....either you "submit" to Allah or you don't. Same with all religions which are a form of mass hypnosis.

    nail meet head……this is the FACT…..either you “submit” to Allah or you don’t. Same with all religions which are a form of mass hypnosis.

    It’s the same with the de facto religion known as democracy. Either you submit or you don’t.

    I’m not sure whether it’s a result or a cause of mass hypnosis but in practice it certainly appears to be a manifestation of mass delusion.

  58. @Svigor

    And there won’t be. Voting in a democracy asserts the human will above the Will of Allah (pbuh); it’s blasphemy and anti-Islamic. If you want to know how Allah wants society organized, you do not vote on it, you research it … via Islamic scholars. Law comes from Allah as pronounced in the Quran and certified by the scholars. The key point is that the Quran is the word of Allah, not the interpreted word of God as in the Christian Bible that leaves room for honest differences of opinion.
     
    There are no examples of Muhammed's followers voting on anything? Of deliberating on anything? Of representatives deliberating or voting? I find that hard to believe.

    More to the point, is there any injunction against democracy, or representative democracy?

    Having worked, lived, and traveled in the Middle East for 14 years, I finally got out of the business when I had had enough of Islamic culture, especially the pervasive hypocrisy wrapped within superficial piety.
     
    This seems to be a common feature of SWANA populations. Jesus was famous for his injunctions against the legalism of Judaism. And Jews haven't exactly distanced themselves from that characterization in the time since.

    As summary, there is no room in Islamic culture for individual freedom and personal conscience, at least while living in the monastery … and there is no escaping the monastery because the the monastery is the state. That’s captured in the word “Islam”, which means submission or surrender to the Will of Allah as communicated to us in the Quran.
     
    My impression is that Muslims do most of their escaping in their own homes. There seems to be strong tradition of "a man's home is his castle" in Islam, based on a Koranic passge about the sin of prying eyes. I'm always on lookout for stories about Muslim regimes violating this, but I never find any. Granted, the information flow from Muslim countries isn't a rich one. I do know that westerners in Saudi Arabia do seem to understand that their "debauchery" will go along just fine, as long as it remains in western compounds. I also recently read a story about the elderly gent from the UK, living in SA, who made his own wine in his home. He got away with it for years, until one night he agreed to deliver some of it to a friend...

    , though I’m sure if you look through history you can find examples of violent expansionism in Judaism (a good portion of the Old Testament, for starters) and Christianity (Baltic Crusades, the conquest of New Spain).
     
    Sorry, this is tendentious, and always will be. Islam, like the other Abrahamic faiths, is a matter of Scripture, first and foremost. The Scriptures of Christianity do not have Christians as military conquerors, or Christianity's founders as such, and it is not spread through military action. At all. On the contrary, Christ is a strikingly peaceful figure, in terms of physical violence.

    Islam, on the other hand, was explicitly spread by the sword, by the very hand of its Prophet and his followers. In fact, violent jihad and plunder was their way of life. Very much in contrast to Christianity, violence is absolutely baked into the Muslim cake.

    A Christian can point to the Baltic Crusades, the conquest of the New World, etc., wag his finger, and cry, "sin! Heretic!"

    A Muslim who claimed that spreading Islam by violence was a sin, or an inherently heretical act, could probably be rightly tried and executed under Islamic law.

    onsequently any nation that stays out of Israel’s way in the Middle East is sure to be safe from Jewish violence.
     
    A fine distinction that might be lost on the people killed by Israel's shelling of civilian populations.

    How do you rate Tunisia as democracy? On a par with Paraguay? Ecuador? Lebanon?

    And how does consideration of Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan (all in 2016) affect your general proposition? Also Turkey and Bosnia?
     
    Good questions. Anon said there had never been a democratic Arab country - maybe the problem is not Islam, but Arabs.

    The one harsh irony of selecting only socially liberal applicants from nations with high % of Muslims is that it would seem to be a sure fire way to recruit anti-European, open borders globalists in the mold of Fareed Zakaria, Aziz Ansari, Neera Tanden, & Jeet Heer.
     
    Another would be that the policy would tend to drain Muslim countries of their "reformers."

    It is also different because there is no recognized leader such as a Pope or Patriarch who can change the direction of the religion and the faithful have to abide by his decision.

    How can there be a reformation when anybody can stand up and accuse somebody else (the reformer) of apostasy and if he gets enough followers kill the apostate.
     
    It shares this condition with Protestant Christianity and Judaism. Catholics would seem to be the exception here, not the rule.

    All this because grown adults can’t stop believing ancient books of fairy stories.
     
    Liberal democracy seems to be the biggest fairy tale of them all. The Delusion of Human Equality being their most treasured. How nuts do you have to be to believe in that tripe? And they don't even have an ancient book, to keep them honest. And then there's their hatred of all other fairy tales and religions (competition, you see), which leads them to all sorts of mischief. And consider how much suffering they've caused, simply with their refusal to accept human nature ("can't stop believing ancient books of fairy stories"), and their unending crusade against it. It would seem to be obvious that it is human nature to believe in "fairy tales," and the "liberal" response is to crusade against human nature.

    It shares this condition with Protestant Christianity and Judaism. Catholics would seem to be the exception here, not the rule.

    I believe each Orthodox sect has a Patriarch. The Anglican Church has a historic leader (The Royal Monarch) the actual leader (The Archbishop of Canterbury) and a hierarchy. To my knowledge other Protestant denominations do as well. Even the Mormons, although every now and then some old fart tired of banging his wife decides to start a “fundamentalist” sect so he can start banging teenagers again.

    Anybody in Islam can declare himself an Imam. In Iran you have the Mullahs but they have no ability to affect anything outside of Iran.

  59. @Maj. Kong
    Shia Islam has a well defined clerical hierarchy, liberals including notably Stephen Colbert, like to compare it to Catholicism.

    http://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2014/spring/vali-nasr-profile/

    Iran is basically the center of the Shia. How much influence do the mullahs in Iran have over the Shia elsewhere? I don’t think they have much.

    • Replies: @MEexpert
    I disagree. Majority of the Irani population is Shia but Iran is not the center of the Shias. Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the top cleric in Iraq, has the most following all around the world. He advises his followers to blend in with the society while keeping the real Islamic values and practices in mind.
  60. @jtgw
    Thought-provoking piece. Gottfried notes several things that I have wondered about but rarely seen discussed, e.g. the incompatibility of modern multiculturalist and egalitarian values not only with traditional Islam, but other traditional religions as well. At the same time, he notes that traditional Islam does seem to suffer from more violent tendencies, though I'm sure if you look through history you can find examples of violent expansionism in Judaism (a good portion of the Old Testament, for starters) and Christianity (Baltic Crusades, the conquest of New Spain). So I guess you could conclude that a modern liberal democracy might find a way to coexist peacefully with traditionalist communities of Jews and Christians, but will always live under threat from a community of traditionalist Muslims in its midst.

    Violent Judaism today seems focused on maintaining and strengthening Jewish hegemony in historic Palestine. Whether or not you think this is just towards the Palestinians, it is still very locally directed, and consequently any nation that stays out of Israel's way in the Middle East is sure to be safe from Jewish violence. I see practically no evidence for violent Christianity these days, except perhaps in Russia's fight to keep control over Muslim border territories like Chechnya; America's wars for democracy seem to have nothing to do with advancing or defending Christendom, and indeed seem to have had the opposite effect, as far as Iraqi and Syrian Christians are concerned. Only violent Islam seems alive and well and outwardly focused.

    As a libertarian, I would quibble with Hobbes' dichotomy between civil order and natural liberty. A true civil order respects natural liberty, since natural liberty can be defined as doing what you want, as long as you don't harm another. Universal observation of this principle would obviously result in universal peace and concord. Clearly Hobbes meant something else, i.e. submission to the aggressions and depredations of the State in order to ensure peace among those governed by the State. But the State is not held to the same standards; while private citizens are forbidden from murder and stealing, agents of the State may commit those crimes with impunity. Whether this results in universal civil peace is questionable.

    “A true civil order respects natural liberty”

    Respects natural liberty or demands that this be the sole ruling principle of society?

    “… since natural liberty can be defined as doing what you want, as long as you don’t harm another. Universal observation of this principle would obviously result in universal peace and concord. ”

    “Natural liberty” and “freedom” mean little outside of community and an ordered social fabric. Concepts of freedom and liberty would not even occur to an individual without such a contextual reference.

    A “universal” libertarianism seems to be about denying and avoiding the tradition of recognized moral virtues. Without a shared morality, which necessarily will violate personal freedoms, there is only legalism to hold down a civic and civil existence. Under libertarianism, your freedom runs into trouble as soon as it bumps into my freedom– we are in conflict or disagreement long before another is harmed, per se.

    As others have said, libertarianism is the logical end point of liberalism. It is mainly suited to those who hold their autonomy and the fulfillment of their personal desires above all other values.

    • Replies: @jtgw

    Respects natural liberty or demands that this be the sole ruling principle of society?

     

    It's the standard by which we judge political systems. For example, if theft is morally wrong, why is it permissible when the State does it through taxation? Does it make sense for moral principles to bind only certain groups of people and not others? I suppose some of the more extreme Nietzscheans on the alt-right would say "yes", but I imagine most conservatives would concede that moral principles ought to be universal and bind all men equally.

    A “universal” libertarianism seems to be about denying and avoiding the tradition of recognized moral virtues. Without a shared morality, which necessarily will violate personal freedoms, there is only legalism to hold down a civic and civil existence. Under libertarianism, your freedom runs into trouble as soon as it bumps into my freedom– we are in conflict or disagreement long before another is harmed, per se.

     

    Who recognizes these moral virtues and what are they exactly? When the US was born, there was a lot of discussion of religious liberty. It seems quaint now, but people seriously believed that differences of doctrine and religious practice were of serious moral and social import. Nevertheless, it was agreed that groups of differing religions could coexist, provided they agreed to refrain from violent aggression against other groups. This is the historical foundation of the libertarian principle of non-aggression: even if you disapprove of someone else's religion or lifestyle, you are not allowed to use violence against that person, unless the other first commits or threatens violence against you.

    As others have said, libertarianism is the logical end point of liberalism. It is mainly suited to those who hold their autonomy and the fulfillment of their personal desires above all other values.

     

    This is a strange statement in view of history. Classical liberalism, the forerunner of modern libertarianism, was mostly corrupted by leftist ideas until it became modern left-liberalism. The metamorphosis of traditionalist conservatism and the Old Right into neoconservatism followed a similar path. I think a better way to understand libertarianism is as the distillation of classical liberalism, which was itself a distillation of the ideas underlying the Reformation, namely the importance of individual freedom of conscience, which was first extended to people in the realm of religion, and gradually in other realms as well. Along the way, confusion arose as to the precise definition of liberty, with some arguing for the existence of positive rights, e.g. the right to sustenance, alongside negative rights, e.g. the right to be free from aggression. Libertarians are about removing the confusion, adopting a precise definition of liberty in negative terms, and applying those principles of liberty rigorously.
  61. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    Right. And that's why "that shitty little country" has Jews Only policies.

    So that’s a thing that Israel does right, then?

  62. @pelagic
    "A true civil order respects natural liberty"

    Respects natural liberty or demands that this be the sole ruling principle of society?

    "... since natural liberty can be defined as doing what you want, as long as you don’t harm another. Universal observation of this principle would obviously result in universal peace and concord. "

    "Natural liberty" and "freedom" mean little outside of community and an ordered social fabric. Concepts of freedom and liberty would not even occur to an individual without such a contextual reference.

    A "universal" libertarianism seems to be about denying and avoiding the tradition of recognized moral virtues. Without a shared morality, which necessarily will violate personal freedoms, there is only legalism to hold down a civic and civil existence. Under libertarianism, your freedom runs into trouble as soon as it bumps into my freedom-- we are in conflict or disagreement long before another is harmed, per se.

    As others have said, libertarianism is the logical end point of liberalism. It is mainly suited to those who hold their autonomy and the fulfillment of their personal desires above all other values.

    Respects natural liberty or demands that this be the sole ruling principle of society?

    It’s the standard by which we judge political systems. For example, if theft is morally wrong, why is it permissible when the State does it through taxation? Does it make sense for moral principles to bind only certain groups of people and not others? I suppose some of the more extreme Nietzscheans on the alt-right would say “yes”, but I imagine most conservatives would concede that moral principles ought to be universal and bind all men equally.

    A “universal” libertarianism seems to be about denying and avoiding the tradition of recognized moral virtues. Without a shared morality, which necessarily will violate personal freedoms, there is only legalism to hold down a civic and civil existence. Under libertarianism, your freedom runs into trouble as soon as it bumps into my freedom– we are in conflict or disagreement long before another is harmed, per se.

    Who recognizes these moral virtues and what are they exactly? When the US was born, there was a lot of discussion of religious liberty. It seems quaint now, but people seriously believed that differences of doctrine and religious practice were of serious moral and social import. Nevertheless, it was agreed that groups of differing religions could coexist, provided they agreed to refrain from violent aggression against other groups. This is the historical foundation of the libertarian principle of non-aggression: even if you disapprove of someone else’s religion or lifestyle, you are not allowed to use violence against that person, unless the other first commits or threatens violence against you.

    As others have said, libertarianism is the logical end point of liberalism. It is mainly suited to those who hold their autonomy and the fulfillment of their personal desires above all other values.

    This is a strange statement in view of history. Classical liberalism, the forerunner of modern libertarianism, was mostly corrupted by leftist ideas until it became modern left-liberalism. The metamorphosis of traditionalist conservatism and the Old Right into neoconservatism followed a similar path. I think a better way to understand libertarianism is as the distillation of classical liberalism, which was itself a distillation of the ideas underlying the Reformation, namely the importance of individual freedom of conscience, which was first extended to people in the realm of religion, and gradually in other realms as well. Along the way, confusion arose as to the precise definition of liberty, with some arguing for the existence of positive rights, e.g. the right to sustenance, alongside negative rights, e.g. the right to be free from aggression. Libertarians are about removing the confusion, adopting a precise definition of liberty in negative terms, and applying those principles of liberty rigorously.

    • Replies: @pelagic
    "It’s the standard by which we judge political systems."

    No, it is one standard and many earth dwellers would not rate it as being the most important.

    "Does it make sense for moral principles to bind only certain groups of people and not others?"

    Yes. Some principles appear to be universal or nearly so but not all. Why does this blind quest for universal norms never strike liberals as being irrational? One of the fatal flaws of libertarianism is the belief that certain "universals" are true and can be or should be followed by all. Why would anyone believe this should be applied to people everywhere? And who would be in charge of such a progressive campaign?

    "I imagine most conservatives would concede that moral principles ought to be universal and bind all men equally."

    To observe some common desires or inherent needs among all men is one thing. But to channel that understanding into a system that demands that all should abide by certain principles ("freedom") that some small number of elites have defined according to their whim takes some hubris. Is that any different than ways others have historically worked their way to power?

    "Nevertheless, it was agreed that groups of differing religions could coexist, provided they agreed to refrain from violent aggression against other groups."

    Has it occurred to you that many in those "differing religions" do not want to coexist with you and your kind? Islam for instance, whose pattern of conquest and violent suppression is as true now as it was on Day One? What will you do with folks in your own country who will not subscribe to your wonderful Rights of Man ideas? You speak of religion as if you stand outside of it but it's a safe bet that some religion has a lot to do with how you got here and shapes the world around you.

    Your definition and precise application of principles of liberty may have some merit but you need meat on those bones. My impression is that libertarians say that man lives by liberty alone. Full stop. His spirituality, religion, ethnicity, race, history, language and culture are just too difficult to reconcile so they are consigned to irrelevance. No. Liberty is the afterthought, as important as it is to Westerners.
  63. @Wizard of Oz
    You implicitly raise, without answering, the question of how we who want to preach or, having sufficient power, to decide what moral improvements in the world should be spread widely should weigh their importance - and how far the individual should be made the beneficiary of moral improvement. (Even Western Christian countries for whom all were equal in God's sight were permanently left with the problem of where you draw the line that protects children from bad parents).

    Why shouldn't we apply your argument to slavery? And were the British wrong to ban widow burning in Hindu India? Granted that those Scots who thought the fuddy duddy paternalistic Imperial government which wanted to limit free trade and the right of their citizens to smoke as much opium as they liked took a line that went out of fashion but they were capitalist predators rather than highminded statesmen. But yes, in an age where high minded statesmen are hard to discover and Angela Merkel has given us some clue about what some of them might do on a bad hair day maybe we should listen to Sancho Panza and decline to mount our high horses most days.

    Did the British ban Sati a voluntary response to invasion or prolong it by trying to create child prostitutes out of widows।।

    Moreover did they do this of own accord or listen to reformers।।

    You forget the muslims also hated Sati it prevented the rape of widows।।We understand you’re a Savage with no traditions & you wish to take our own by defiling & corrupting our women & children।।
    It is truly glorious & hilarious that the same pakis & bengalis you sacrificed your nation to protect are now gang raping your daughters & grandmothers।।

    Dirty Anglo-christian savages such as yourself forget that celts had a similar practice & Vedas ban Sati women commit it anyway।।A feminized anglo saxon jute whose shitty tiny little island gets demographically replaced every 5 centuries won’t understand।।

    Sati existed in Bengal due to melech untouchables like brits & nawabs being in power।।

    I understand you’re a Protestant and will only understand when nukes cleanse London & Nyc of untouchable anglo filth।।

    That’s fine & good day to you and your pakistani rape gangs।। :)

    ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਹਿ।।

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Oh please, don't destroy my illusions that Sikhs are on the whole quite intelligent and rational compared with the general run of mankind.

    Your rant is demeaning to your intellect in the first place because it is the kind of response which a learned judge in Indian as in other sophisticated courts would pull up short with "Mr Singh, you must address yourself to the question asked. This is not an opportunity to wander off on your personal enthusiasms or resentments".

    But you compound the disgrace to your intellect by gross errors of fact with no justification. To start with what possible reason can you give for saying I am Christian - and Protestant as well?

    As to listening to reformers (who Indian? Names please) no doubt they both consulted people who knew Hindu India well but were most influenced by the English Evangelical reform influence which likewise inspired the ending of slave trading and slavery and somewhat ineffectual but genuine attempts to protect those most unprepared for the modern industrialising world, like Australian Aborigines.

    And your imaginative approach to facts and evidence reaches levels matching the crude incivility of your language when you rabbit on about Pakistanis and bengalis (sic, I think you mean Bangladeshis) as though that had anything to do with my country. Aha! Is there a clue in your scatological fury that some English people have judged your intellect and character too well and failed you in your degtee course, on your Master's thesis or maybe in your attempt to get into a graduate school or program. You are certainly not a mentally healthy person at ease with himself. Or is that maybe a pose - perhaps by a Rehmat intern - to discredit Indians and Sikhs on particular. If so, not a bad effort it has to be said.

    And if you do want to join the conversation perhaps you would care to avoid something so sensitive to your (pretended?) Indian pride as sati/suttee and consider whether intervention to prevent other nations practising slavery or engaging in slave trade should be off the agenda of civilised countries.

  64. Hobbes didn’t just insist religion could not be allowed to make claims on i’s own authority, his denunciation of Robert Boyle to the government on the ground that Boyle was claiming to know what was true (about vacuums) without reference to lawful authority was in a similar vein and showed Hobbes thought even science could not be allowed to be arbitrator of what was true either. Science has largely taken the place of religion, and that is why economists can’t understand anyone calling for immigration restriction, and climate researchers are not much more tolerant of dissenting views about their own hobby horse:- CBS, Time Editor Push ‘Deadly’ Global Warming: ‘Not Subject to Politics’…Or Is It?.

    It is the commonest brickbat of argument in English to say such and such a view is held in the same way as a religious view, because religion is seen a joke in the West. Democracy creating a consensus discounting scientific meliorism as the supreme authority was the next step. The decisions to Brexit and elect Trump show that science has been relegated, for a time, to the same status as religion. A generation or two hence the received wisdom of experts will have got back in line with the democratic majority, and then it will be time for another revolution of the people, because the experts never really know as much as they think.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    because the experts never really know as much as they think.
     
    That's sooo true. And that's a huge reason why they feel compelled to slap the label of "science" (or "democracy") on just about any garbage they spew.

    Today, in America at least, both "science" and "democracy" are de facto religions, complete with (usually money grubbing) cults.

    The way it works is that we're supposed to worship anything they present under either of those two labels, believe it without doubt, and send 'em shekels for the privilege.

    99% of today's 'experts" are nothing more than the oracles of old.
  65. @unpc downunder
    As a moderate nationalist I find the most disturbing aspect of modern Islam is the idea of developing a global caliphate. This seems to be the modern Islamic equivalent of western globalism/ultra-liberalism. This is also the primary reason why I oppose the spread of Muslim culture in the West. It's just another example of modern globalists trying to trample over local customs and undermining national sovereignty.

    Its the Mosaic distinction in action।।

    Liberalism, Marxism, Jew, Islam & Xtian।।

    Allegory say our god is true all others false।।

    Pagans have translatability which leads to coexistence & indifference।।

    It’s up to Aryas to destroy Mosaic distinction।।

  66. @anon
    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.

    The girl in the pic is hot.

    I really like Muslim girls but as I grow older I think that Latinas are hotter. I would currently rank the races like this in terms of female looks:

    1. Latinas
    2. Iranian
    3. Pakistani/Indian
    4. Arab
    5. Slavic
    6. Armenian/Chechen/Georgian/Turkish
    7. Southern Euro
    8. Ethiopian
    9. Nordic
    10. Western/Central Euro
    11. Northeast Asian

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Arab women, even attractive ones, have a cruel look to them. The woman in the picture is no different. Avoid at all costs.
    , @Anon
    What, no Jewesses? I would rate them (Ashkenazim, at any rate) fairly high, below Slavs, Iranians, and Spaniards (Castellanas), but well above the general run of Europeans.

    I've heard a lot of guff about their personalities, but all I've met have been perfectly likeable.

  67. @jtgw
    Well, I'm neither a drug addict or a sex pervert, so I guess your assertion is wrong. Somalia's nadir was right after the highly centralizing and totalitarian dictatorship of Siad Barre ended in the early 1990s and has actually improved a lot since then without a single central government. I don't know what IQ has to do with the discussion.

    You may be the exception concerning drugs/sex but your IQ/reasoning abilities are questionable.

    The average Somalian IQ is 68. There is no government or even a normal society in Somalia because of their IQ (ever heard of Somali terrorists?). Please read the “Bell Curve” and it shows that a country/society needs a minimum IQ of 90 to be civilized. Blacks/Asians have the lowest IQs. Caucasians have the highest IQs. Libertarians are possessed by the insane idea that people (left alone) can band together and form free, functioning societies.

    Also, we have Somalians in Minnesota. How are they working out for the USA? Why aren’t they trying to convince Democratic, socialistic Minnesotans to get rid of their state government? Why are almost all of them welfare dependents?

    Why aren’t American libertarians trying to get to know the Minnesota Somalis so they can find out about the libertarian state in Somalia and how we can bring it to the USA?

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Actually, East Asians have the highest IQs according to studies cited in the Bell Curve and similar works, higher than Caucasians. I'm sure average national IQ influences development, but so does the type of government and the amount of power government has over people's lives. There's plenty of evidence that life in Somalia has improved over the past two decades of "anarchy":

    https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it

    As I said before, Somalia was at a low point in the mid-1990s (Black Hawk Down era) because it had just emerged from decades of brutal socialist dictatorship that had torn at the fabric of Somali society. Under Barre, people were forbidden from associating in traditional clans and the government was trying to hammer out a brave new Somali identity, with predictable results. Somalia is just another lesson in why socialism is bad.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I'm not disagreeing with your policy positions but I think your references to IQ need elaborating and refining. No doubt IQ tests administered to Somalis have provided average figures like 68 and I don't take the point that the tests are necessarily worthless because not culture fair. They may well be the more or less culture fair Raven's Progressive Matrices but still that still leaves test sophistication, familiarity with pen or pencil use, nutrition and disease (not least debilitating worms) amongst factors that might affect IQ test results in year 1 but much less 5 years later. Ron Unz's demolition of the Lynn and Vanhenen figures should be born in mind. It is also a question whether average IQ is anything like as important if the social structure allows for an intelligent educated aristocracy.
    , @jacques sheete
    Your comment is nothing more than the supercilious braying of yet another ignoramus yapping about something he hasn't the first clue of, i.e., IQ testing.

    If you have any self respect and want to avoid making a fool of yourself in public, then you may want to consider spending less time reading Fwed (High IQ) Reedian bilgewater and getting up to speed on what it's all about. It ain't what you think it is.

    BTW, forget about Somalis. You don't know a flippin thing about them either.
  68. But unlike our democracy boosters, those who conceived of such oaths were being reasonable about what they demanded. They hoped to prevent those working in our universities and government from seeking the violent overthrow of the government. Every sovereign state has a right and indeed a duty to demand this of whomever it employs or lets in.

    This is OK but questions for the 21st Century are;

    Does Congress represent Special interests or the Public Interest?

    Has government already been (peacefully) overthrown by organized big money special interests?

    Looking at it this way, those seeking to destroy legitimate government may have already arrived and been in the US for some time.

  69. @Maj. Kong
    Indonesia would be the best example of an Islamic country following Western norms about representative government. But its important to note the continuing practice of mysticism among Muslims in that country, which mainstream Sunnis find aghast. The Wahhabi aligned factions are notable, and are calling for the execution of a Christian governor in Jakarta.

    The other two are roughly illiberal democracies, with Malaysia having a sizeable non-Muslim minority mostly isolated from real political power.

    Turkey is an autocracy. Whether Kemalist, Gulen or Erdogan. They are unrepentant about what they did to the Armenians.

    Thanks. It does leave me still wondering how far our understanding should weight being Arabic as against being Muslim. And tends to confirm my strong view that the US sonce 1990 at latest should have been putting pressure on the Saudis to quit funding Wahabi evangelism.

  70. @jacques sheete
    There are plenty of beliefs that are inherently intolerant.

    "Democracy," despite the label, is one of them. Those who yammer in favor of the idol known as "democracy" especially as it's used today, are no better than your average religious fundamentalist.

    Mao nailed it thusly...


    Well, perhaps worshipers of ‘democracy’ should end their pro-democracy jihad first, and leave the rest of the world to practice whatever political and ethical systems they find suitable for them.

     


    Islam is different than the other religions, primarily because its adherents are a little too serious about their faith.
     
    Same can be said about those who effectivley put their faith in or "worship" virtually any political system and history provides endless examples.

    Naah. You can support representative democracy in the West and sharia in Arabic countries. It’s up to the people in each nation to decide–and that includes popular revolution. It’s just none of our business to tell people in other countries how to run their country unless they’re threatening us.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What would you propose other countries do if an extreme wing of the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt (by "popular revolution" no doubt) and set out to exterminate its 40 million Coptic Christians?
    , @jacques sheete
    Representative democracy in America has always been a joke. The constitution itself was proof of the concept and the anti-federalists were correct.

    Like I've posted often, democracy of any sort only works for relatively small groups and even then it typically, if not inevitably, rapidly devolves into tyranny.
  71. @Robert Magill
    Muslims had been living peacefully in the United States for 125+ years. The Nation of Islam was founded on the idea the Islam was a religion of peace versus Christianity. What changed? Perhaps the overthrow of the democratically elected, Mohammad Mosaddegh, President of Iran, to secure Iranian oil for the British- American company helped? Perhaps, the entry of a basically European culture into Palestine helped? Maybe American desire for worldwide hegemony including the middle east helped? Maybe our killing of so many Muslim grandmothers, uncles and children finally tipped the scales? Maybe stopping all this anti-Muslim crap for awhile might help? You think?

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Actually, I agree, but given the current situation, why import more of them?

  72. @attilathehen
    You may be the exception concerning drugs/sex but your IQ/reasoning abilities are questionable.

    The average Somalian IQ is 68. There is no government or even a normal society in Somalia because of their IQ (ever heard of Somali terrorists?). Please read the "Bell Curve" and it shows that a country/society needs a minimum IQ of 90 to be civilized. Blacks/Asians have the lowest IQs. Caucasians have the highest IQs. Libertarians are possessed by the insane idea that people (left alone) can band together and form free, functioning societies.

    Also, we have Somalians in Minnesota. How are they working out for the USA? Why aren't they trying to convince Democratic, socialistic Minnesotans to get rid of their state government? Why are almost all of them welfare dependents?

    Why aren't American libertarians trying to get to know the Minnesota Somalis so they can find out about the libertarian state in Somalia and how we can bring it to the USA?

    Actually, East Asians have the highest IQs according to studies cited in the Bell Curve and similar works, higher than Caucasians. I’m sure average national IQ influences development, but so does the type of government and the amount of power government has over people’s lives. There’s plenty of evidence that life in Somalia has improved over the past two decades of “anarchy”:

    https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it

    As I said before, Somalia was at a low point in the mid-1990s (Black Hawk Down era) because it had just emerged from decades of brutal socialist dictatorship that had torn at the fabric of Somali society. Under Barre, people were forbidden from associating in traditional clans and the government was trying to hammer out a brave new Somali identity, with predictable results. Somalia is just another lesson in why socialism is bad.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Actually, East Asians (all Asians) are notorious test cheaters, so though the Bell Curve is a good starting point for IQ studies, there is more.

    If East Asians are smarter, why did the Industrial Revolution (and most inventions) occur in European/Caucasian societies? Why did the Japanese Westernize and why didn't the West Easternize (i.e., turn Japanese)? Why do Asians copy the West?

    "Life has improved in Somalia." "Somalia is another lesson bad socialism."

    Are you Caucasian, or Asian/Jewish/black?

    You did not answer my questions about Somalians in Minnesota.
  73. So the argument that Islam is inherently evil because violence is supposedly written into its founding documents while the other big religions are free of that taint seems specious in practice. In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.

    That isn’t my argument. I don’t have any knee-jerk reaction to a militant, expansionist religion that enshrines conversion and dominion by the sword. I wouldn’t call it evil. Apt to getting its ass kicked a lot, maybe.

    I would call it inherently violent, militant, and expansionist, though. Mohammed is their model, the way Christ is the model for Christians. You can take anything and commit violence in that thing’s name, but with Islam, it’s the converse; you can’t take the militancy out.

    Mohammed lived the life of a bandit, executed prisoners, took and kept slaves, had many wives (way more than four), and had sex with children. The contrast with Christ could not be more stark.

    In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.

    C’mon, man. Relativism has its place, but Scripture matters. Law matters. Divine precedent matters.

    Mark: Mormons aren’t really Christians (just ask a Catholic), and Protestants don’t take any of that mess seriously. As for the Orthodox, I wouldn’t know. Other side of the planet.

    Does it make sense for moral principles to bind only certain groups of people and not others?

    It depends on the group, obviously, but yes, of course it does.

    Singh: ah yes, south Asia, the pinnacle of human civilization. I’d talk some trash to you, but your civilization is probably punishment enough.

    I really like Muslim girls but as I grow older I think that Latinas are hotter. I would currently rank the races like this in terms of female looks:

    Too bad so few of your greasy coracialists agree.

    • Replies: @Greasy William

    Too bad so few of your greasy coracialists agree.
     
    Are you saying that Jewish guys don't like middle eastern girls and Latinas? Where are you getting this from?
    , @MarkinLA
    Mark: Mormons aren’t really Christians (just ask a Catholic), and Protestants don’t take any of that mess seriously. As for the Orthodox, I wouldn’t know. Other side of the planet.

    My point was there is a hierarchy in those religions (even the Scientologists) and the faithful have to adhere to what the heads say. There is no such specific leadership to my knowledge in Islam.
    , @jacques sheete

    C’mon, man. Relativism has its place, but Scripture matters. Law matters. Divine precedent matters.
     
    They matter to philosphers, but even they only rarely agree.

    The man on the street, no matter what he professes, acts as if none of it really matters.


    I would call [Islam] inherently violent, militant, and expansionist, though.
     
    That in no way distinguishes it from the other two major Abrahamic religions.

    In fact, Christ himself was driven to violence on occasion and I bet it happened more often than we've been led to believe. Furthermore, his father was and should still be notorious for his use of threats and violence.

    So don't gimmee any of this nonsense about only one religion being based on violence. We're all in the same boat, and we all pretty much stink the same.

    , @MEexpert

    I would call it inherently violent, militant, and expansionist, though. Mohammed is their model, the way Christ is the model for Christians. You can take anything and commit violence in that thing’s name, but with Islam, it’s the converse; you can’t take the militancy out.

     

    Boy are you ignorant. Which history book are you reading? Stop reading Pat Geller or Robert Spencer. The word Islam itself means peace. Don't read the neocon propaganda.

    Mohammed lived the life of a bandit, executed prisoners, took and kept slaves, had many wives (way more than four), and had sex with children. The contrast with Christ could not be more stark.
     
    And you know it how? It is easy to regurgitate the filth the neocons are putting out against Islam by insulting the Prophet, the most peaceful person. Here is what the real scholars of religion have said about him in the past. Do you think they would have said this if what you wrote were true?

    Ah, the personality of Muhammad! (P.B.U.H), it is most difficult to get into the truth of it. To quote Professor Ramakrishna Rao, in one of the best articles from a non-Muslim, "One can only catch a glimpse of it. What a dramatic succession of picturesque scenes. There is Muhammad, the prophet. There is Muhammad the General; Muhammad the King; Muhammad the Warrior; Muhammad the businessman; Muhammad the preacher; Muhammad the philosopher; Muhammad the statesman; Muhammad the Orator; Muhammad the reformer; Muhammad the refuge of orphans; Muhammad the Protector of Slaves; Muhammad the emancipator of women; Muhammad the Law-giver; Muhammad the Judge; Muhammad the Saint."

    The literature is full of glowing tributes to his personality. French historian, Lamaratine writes, "Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?" (Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.)

    Another western author (Bosworth Smith) continues, "He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports." (Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM, London, 1874, p. 92.)
    Michael Hart puts him at the top of his 100 most influential persons in history. His reasons, "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." (Michael H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, p. 33.)

    "If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls. . . his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words. (Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.)

    Historian Edward Gibbon writes: "It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran. . . The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. 'I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God' is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honours of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion."
    Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay, HISTORY OF THE SARACEN EMPIRE, London, 1870, p. 54.

    "It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher."
    Annie Besant, THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD, Madras,1932, p. 4.
  74. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Robert Magill
    Muslims had been living peacefully in the United States for 125+ years. The Nation of Islam was founded on the idea the Islam was a religion of peace versus Christianity. What changed? Perhaps the overthrow of the democratically elected, Mohammad Mosaddegh, President of Iran, to secure Iranian oil for the British- American company helped? Perhaps, the entry of a basically European culture into Palestine helped? Maybe American desire for worldwide hegemony including the middle east helped? Maybe our killing of so many Muslim grandmothers, uncles and children finally tipped the scales? Maybe stopping all this anti-Muslim crap for awhile might help? You think?

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Historically the Muslim immigrant population in the USA was almost zero. What few Muslims there later were, were black American converts, not immigrants as such. Nor can anyone seriously argue that Muslims or Arabs have ever made a major contribution to America, (or anywhere else) for that matter.

  75. @Wizard of Oz
    In general terms it is easy to agree but do you have any comment on the comparatively recently floated "responsibility to protect? And if North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons and wasn't maintained by China as a buffer zone would you hesitate to encourage the South to liberate its wtetched people? And can oppression of women or minorities, get to the point when, if you can do it easily without great bloodshed, overthrowing the oppressors becomes like marching into your neighbour's garden where a drunken man his beating up his wife and forcing him to desist. I am I suppose assuming that lack of enough of the basic rights assumed appropriate to a modern state is equivalent to lack of democracy from a moral pointbof view.

    Then - and not a priori before the protective engagement - you have to consider how the place is to be run in future by and for its inhabitants. Not ready for democracy (too primitive or too much diversity for example)? It looks as though the mandate system of regulated empire should be allowed a part until.... what? Adequately civilised democracy? Partition between irreconcilable groups (and what if honest non PC judgment is that one lot can make democracy work but the other lot can't)?

    If you don't try and be your international brother's keeper ever you are going to have to decide what to do about refugees, possibly in vast numbers.

    Certainly the ideal needs to be tempered by realism, beyond the obvious question for democracies like the US of the willingness of voters to pay the price and exhibit the needed stamina and persistence. The first Gulf War was conducted with sensible restraint and nothing more was attempted than the US could certainly accomplish without ridiculous waste of lives or resources.

    As usual, there’s something backwards in your thinking:

    “If you don’t try and be your international brother’s keeper ever you are going to have to decide what to do about refugees, possibly in vast numbers.”

    In practical terms, we should state this as the opposite, for it is when you DO TRY to be your international brother’s keeper that the refugees start flowing; witness Europe today. I guess it’s partly inaccurate to say that the illegal immigrants from MENA are as a result of the west trying to be their international brother’s keeper; the west justifies their destablization of the region on their lip service to R2P, but we know the REAL reason for it. The chosen country doesn’t want any rising power that could challenge its current military superiority in the area, so the countries must be destroyed, cut up into easily controlled “statelets”, and here we go on our merry way into the future.

    And let’s be honest, Wizard, you have NEVER supported the “civilized” countries of the west going into Israel and forcing the drunk Israelis, proven land thieves of the native population, to stop oppressing their minorities and beating their wives.

    @Who made you God: “Then – and not a priori before the protective engagement – you have to consider how the place is to be run in future by and for its inhabitants.”

    You are not thinking deeply; you are contributing to the problem, not working towards solving it. You’re still hiding behind the curtain, pretending to be a wizard when you’re actually just a mediocre human.

    Frankie P

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I really can't be bothered to engage with people to stupid or too lazy to understand what has been said in the conversation they barge into. I am not going to hold your hand and take you through it but if a couple of rereadings of the thread doesn't prepare you adequately for civilized discourse I suggest you get a tutor with at least a good degree from a good university.
  76. @Singh
    Did the British ban Sati a voluntary response to invasion or prolong it by trying to create child prostitutes out of widows।।

    Moreover did they do this of own accord or listen to reformers।।

    You forget the muslims also hated Sati it prevented the rape of widows।।We understand you're a Savage with no traditions & you wish to take our own by defiling & corrupting our women & children।।
    It is truly glorious & hilarious that the same pakis & bengalis you sacrificed your nation to protect are now gang raping your daughters & grandmothers।।

    Dirty Anglo-christian savages such as yourself forget that celts had a similar practice & Vedas ban Sati women commit it anyway।।A feminized anglo saxon jute whose shitty tiny little island gets demographically replaced every 5 centuries won't understand।।

    Sati existed in Bengal due to melech untouchables like brits & nawabs being in power।।

    I understand you're a Protestant and will only understand when nukes cleanse London & Nyc of untouchable anglo filth।।

    That's fine & good day to you and your pakistani rape gangs।। :)

    ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਹਿ।।

    Oh please, don’t destroy my illusions that Sikhs are on the whole quite intelligent and rational compared with the general run of mankind.

    Your rant is demeaning to your intellect in the first place because it is the kind of response which a learned judge in Indian as in other sophisticated courts would pull up short with “Mr Singh, you must address yourself to the question asked. This is not an opportunity to wander off on your personal enthusiasms or resentments”.

    But you compound the disgrace to your intellect by gross errors of fact with no justification. To start with what possible reason can you give for saying I am Christian – and Protestant as well?

    As to listening to reformers (who Indian? Names please) no doubt they both consulted people who knew Hindu India well but were most influenced by the English Evangelical reform influence which likewise inspired the ending of slave trading and slavery and somewhat ineffectual but genuine attempts to protect those most unprepared for the modern industrialising world, like Australian Aborigines.

    And your imaginative approach to facts and evidence reaches levels matching the crude incivility of your language when you rabbit on about Pakistanis and bengalis (sic, I think you mean Bangladeshis) as though that had anything to do with my country. Aha! Is there a clue in your scatological fury that some English people have judged your intellect and character too well and failed you in your degtee course, on your Master’s thesis or maybe in your attempt to get into a graduate school or program. You are certainly not a mentally healthy person at ease with himself. Or is that maybe a pose – perhaps by a Rehmat intern – to discredit Indians and Sikhs on particular. If so, not a bad effort it has to be said.

    And if you do want to join the conversation perhaps you would care to avoid something so sensitive to your (pretended?) Indian pride as sati/suttee and consider whether intervention to prevent other nations practising slavery or engaging in slave trade should be off the agenda of civilised countries.

  77. @jtgw

    Respects natural liberty or demands that this be the sole ruling principle of society?

     

    It's the standard by which we judge political systems. For example, if theft is morally wrong, why is it permissible when the State does it through taxation? Does it make sense for moral principles to bind only certain groups of people and not others? I suppose some of the more extreme Nietzscheans on the alt-right would say "yes", but I imagine most conservatives would concede that moral principles ought to be universal and bind all men equally.

    A “universal” libertarianism seems to be about denying and avoiding the tradition of recognized moral virtues. Without a shared morality, which necessarily will violate personal freedoms, there is only legalism to hold down a civic and civil existence. Under libertarianism, your freedom runs into trouble as soon as it bumps into my freedom– we are in conflict or disagreement long before another is harmed, per se.

     

    Who recognizes these moral virtues and what are they exactly? When the US was born, there was a lot of discussion of religious liberty. It seems quaint now, but people seriously believed that differences of doctrine and religious practice were of serious moral and social import. Nevertheless, it was agreed that groups of differing religions could coexist, provided they agreed to refrain from violent aggression against other groups. This is the historical foundation of the libertarian principle of non-aggression: even if you disapprove of someone else's religion or lifestyle, you are not allowed to use violence against that person, unless the other first commits or threatens violence against you.

    As others have said, libertarianism is the logical end point of liberalism. It is mainly suited to those who hold their autonomy and the fulfillment of their personal desires above all other values.

     

    This is a strange statement in view of history. Classical liberalism, the forerunner of modern libertarianism, was mostly corrupted by leftist ideas until it became modern left-liberalism. The metamorphosis of traditionalist conservatism and the Old Right into neoconservatism followed a similar path. I think a better way to understand libertarianism is as the distillation of classical liberalism, which was itself a distillation of the ideas underlying the Reformation, namely the importance of individual freedom of conscience, which was first extended to people in the realm of religion, and gradually in other realms as well. Along the way, confusion arose as to the precise definition of liberty, with some arguing for the existence of positive rights, e.g. the right to sustenance, alongside negative rights, e.g. the right to be free from aggression. Libertarians are about removing the confusion, adopting a precise definition of liberty in negative terms, and applying those principles of liberty rigorously.

    “It’s the standard by which we judge political systems.”

    No, it is one standard and many earth dwellers would not rate it as being the most important.

    “Does it make sense for moral principles to bind only certain groups of people and not others?”

    Yes. Some principles appear to be universal or nearly so but not all. Why does this blind quest for universal norms never strike liberals as being irrational? One of the fatal flaws of libertarianism is the belief that certain “universals” are true and can be or should be followed by all. Why would anyone believe this should be applied to people everywhere? And who would be in charge of such a progressive campaign?

    “I imagine most conservatives would concede that moral principles ought to be universal and bind all men equally.”

    To observe some common desires or inherent needs among all men is one thing. But to channel that understanding into a system that demands that all should abide by certain principles (“freedom”) that some small number of elites have defined according to their whim takes some hubris. Is that any different than ways others have historically worked their way to power?

    “Nevertheless, it was agreed that groups of differing religions could coexist, provided they agreed to refrain from violent aggression against other groups.”

    Has it occurred to you that many in those “differing religions” do not want to coexist with you and your kind? Islam for instance, whose pattern of conquest and violent suppression is as true now as it was on Day One? What will you do with folks in your own country who will not subscribe to your wonderful Rights of Man ideas? You speak of religion as if you stand outside of it but it’s a safe bet that some religion has a lot to do with how you got here and shapes the world around you.

    Your definition and precise application of principles of liberty may have some merit but you need meat on those bones. My impression is that libertarians say that man lives by liberty alone. Full stop. His spirituality, religion, ethnicity, race, history, language and culture are just too difficult to reconcile so they are consigned to irrelevance. No. Liberty is the afterthought, as important as it is to Westerners.

    • Replies: @jtgw

    Has it occurred to you that many in those “differing religions” do not want to coexist with you and your kind? Islam for instance, whose pattern of conquest and violent suppression is as true now as it was on Day One? What will you do with folks in your own country who will not subscribe to your wonderful Rights of Man ideas? You speak of religion as if you stand outside of it but it’s a safe bet that some religion has a lot to do with how you got here and shapes the world around you.

     

    I'm not sure what this critique is aimed at. I was explaining the history of the development of libertarian ideas, how they grew out of the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment, which itself grew out of the yearning for religious liberty and freedom of conscience that inspired the Reformation. I was showing that libertarianism is not some end result of left-liberalism, as you asserted, but that the historical development went in precisely the opposite direction: classical liberalism precedes left-liberalism. Libertarianism is essentially those classical liberals that never went to the left.

    In any case, the non-aggression principle is a normative principle, not a descriptive one. No one is saying that people do not and will not continue to commit acts of aggression, whether in the name of religion or for some other reason. It is simply describing the principle that would maximize peace.
  78. @jacques sheete

    You implicitly raise, without answering, the question of how we who want to preach or, having sufficient power, to decide what moral improvements...
     
    Here's your answer.:


    Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.

    Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding.

    The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

    -Rabbi Hillel the Elder

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/hillel.html

     

    In JS's vernacular, the aphorism is, "Tidy your own shorts first." And yeah, I realize it's Quixote-like.

    Interesting that quixotic (“Quixote like”) can be ambiguous. You use it in the sense of unrealistically optimistic but when quixotic tendencies lead to high minded foreign adventures I would say it is time for Sancho Panza to counsel his master in common sense.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Interesting that quixotic (“Quixote like”) can be ambiguous. You use it in the sense of unrealistically optimistic but when quixotic tendencies lead to high minded foreign adventures I would say it is time for Sancho Panza to counsel his master in common sense.
     
    You are correct on all counts.
  79. @Svigor

    So the argument that Islam is inherently evil because violence is supposedly written into its founding documents while the other big religions are free of that taint seems specious in practice. In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.
     
    That isn't my argument. I don't have any knee-jerk reaction to a militant, expansionist religion that enshrines conversion and dominion by the sword. I wouldn't call it evil. Apt to getting its ass kicked a lot, maybe.

    I would call it inherently violent, militant, and expansionist, though. Mohammed is their model, the way Christ is the model for Christians. You can take anything and commit violence in that thing's name, but with Islam, it's the converse; you can't take the militancy out.

    Mohammed lived the life of a bandit, executed prisoners, took and kept slaves, had many wives (way more than four), and had sex with children. The contrast with Christ could not be more stark.

    In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.
     
    C'mon, man. Relativism has its place, but Scripture matters. Law matters. Divine precedent matters.

    Mark: Mormons aren't really Christians (just ask a Catholic), and Protestants don't take any of that mess seriously. As for the Orthodox, I wouldn't know. Other side of the planet.

    Does it make sense for moral principles to bind only certain groups of people and not others?
     
    It depends on the group, obviously, but yes, of course it does.

    Singh: ah yes, south Asia, the pinnacle of human civilization. I'd talk some trash to you, but your civilization is probably punishment enough.

    I really like Muslim girls but as I grow older I think that Latinas are hotter. I would currently rank the races like this in terms of female looks:
     
    Too bad so few of your greasy coracialists agree.

    Too bad so few of your greasy coracialists agree.

    Are you saying that Jewish guys don’t like middle eastern girls and Latinas? Where are you getting this from?

  80. How honest. I really wish you had written this stuff in 1974. I appreciate the candor from a US person. I grew up with ‘the land of the free and the brave’ notions about the US. I always suspected however that a bow of the knee to US religion (Calvinism) was secretly invoked upon entry to the US but no-one would publicly admit this in 1970s era times. Bravo, but for me too late.

  81. @Svigor

    So the argument that Islam is inherently evil because violence is supposedly written into its founding documents while the other big religions are free of that taint seems specious in practice. In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.
     
    That isn't my argument. I don't have any knee-jerk reaction to a militant, expansionist religion that enshrines conversion and dominion by the sword. I wouldn't call it evil. Apt to getting its ass kicked a lot, maybe.

    I would call it inherently violent, militant, and expansionist, though. Mohammed is their model, the way Christ is the model for Christians. You can take anything and commit violence in that thing's name, but with Islam, it's the converse; you can't take the militancy out.

    Mohammed lived the life of a bandit, executed prisoners, took and kept slaves, had many wives (way more than four), and had sex with children. The contrast with Christ could not be more stark.

    In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.
     
    C'mon, man. Relativism has its place, but Scripture matters. Law matters. Divine precedent matters.

    Mark: Mormons aren't really Christians (just ask a Catholic), and Protestants don't take any of that mess seriously. As for the Orthodox, I wouldn't know. Other side of the planet.

    Does it make sense for moral principles to bind only certain groups of people and not others?
     
    It depends on the group, obviously, but yes, of course it does.

    Singh: ah yes, south Asia, the pinnacle of human civilization. I'd talk some trash to you, but your civilization is probably punishment enough.

    I really like Muslim girls but as I grow older I think that Latinas are hotter. I would currently rank the races like this in terms of female looks:
     
    Too bad so few of your greasy coracialists agree.

    Mark: Mormons aren’t really Christians (just ask a Catholic), and Protestants don’t take any of that mess seriously. As for the Orthodox, I wouldn’t know. Other side of the planet.

    My point was there is a hierarchy in those religions (even the Scientologists) and the faithful have to adhere to what the heads say. There is no such specific leadership to my knowledge in Islam.

  82. @pelagic
    "It’s the standard by which we judge political systems."

    No, it is one standard and many earth dwellers would not rate it as being the most important.

    "Does it make sense for moral principles to bind only certain groups of people and not others?"

    Yes. Some principles appear to be universal or nearly so but not all. Why does this blind quest for universal norms never strike liberals as being irrational? One of the fatal flaws of libertarianism is the belief that certain "universals" are true and can be or should be followed by all. Why would anyone believe this should be applied to people everywhere? And who would be in charge of such a progressive campaign?

    "I imagine most conservatives would concede that moral principles ought to be universal and bind all men equally."

    To observe some common desires or inherent needs among all men is one thing. But to channel that understanding into a system that demands that all should abide by certain principles ("freedom") that some small number of elites have defined according to their whim takes some hubris. Is that any different than ways others have historically worked their way to power?

    "Nevertheless, it was agreed that groups of differing religions could coexist, provided they agreed to refrain from violent aggression against other groups."

    Has it occurred to you that many in those "differing religions" do not want to coexist with you and your kind? Islam for instance, whose pattern of conquest and violent suppression is as true now as it was on Day One? What will you do with folks in your own country who will not subscribe to your wonderful Rights of Man ideas? You speak of religion as if you stand outside of it but it's a safe bet that some religion has a lot to do with how you got here and shapes the world around you.

    Your definition and precise application of principles of liberty may have some merit but you need meat on those bones. My impression is that libertarians say that man lives by liberty alone. Full stop. His spirituality, religion, ethnicity, race, history, language and culture are just too difficult to reconcile so they are consigned to irrelevance. No. Liberty is the afterthought, as important as it is to Westerners.

    Has it occurred to you that many in those “differing religions” do not want to coexist with you and your kind? Islam for instance, whose pattern of conquest and violent suppression is as true now as it was on Day One? What will you do with folks in your own country who will not subscribe to your wonderful Rights of Man ideas? You speak of religion as if you stand outside of it but it’s a safe bet that some religion has a lot to do with how you got here and shapes the world around you.

    I’m not sure what this critique is aimed at. I was explaining the history of the development of libertarian ideas, how they grew out of the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment, which itself grew out of the yearning for religious liberty and freedom of conscience that inspired the Reformation. I was showing that libertarianism is not some end result of left-liberalism, as you asserted, but that the historical development went in precisely the opposite direction: classical liberalism precedes left-liberalism. Libertarianism is essentially those classical liberals that never went to the left.

    In any case, the non-aggression principle is a normative principle, not a descriptive one. No one is saying that people do not and will not continue to commit acts of aggression, whether in the name of religion or for some other reason. It is simply describing the principle that would maximize peace.

  83. @frankie p
    As usual, there's something backwards in your thinking:

    "If you don’t try and be your international brother’s keeper ever you are going to have to decide what to do about refugees, possibly in vast numbers."

    In practical terms, we should state this as the opposite, for it is when you DO TRY to be your international brother's keeper that the refugees start flowing; witness Europe today. I guess it's partly inaccurate to say that the illegal immigrants from MENA are as a result of the west trying to be their international brother's keeper; the west justifies their destablization of the region on their lip service to R2P, but we know the REAL reason for it. The chosen country doesn't want any rising power that could challenge its current military superiority in the area, so the countries must be destroyed, cut up into easily controlled "statelets", and here we go on our merry way into the future.

    And let's be honest, Wizard, you have NEVER supported the "civilized" countries of the west going into Israel and forcing the drunk Israelis, proven land thieves of the native population, to stop oppressing their minorities and beating their wives.

    @Who made you God: "Then – and not a priori before the protective engagement – you have to consider how the place is to be run in future by and for its inhabitants."

    You are not thinking deeply; you are contributing to the problem, not working towards solving it. You're still hiding behind the curtain, pretending to be a wizard when you're actually just a mediocre human.

    Frankie P

    I really can’t be bothered to engage with people to stupid or too lazy to understand what has been said in the conversation they barge into. I am not going to hold your hand and take you through it but if a couple of rereadings of the thread doesn’t prepare you adequately for civilized discourse I suggest you get a tutor with at least a good degree from a good university.

  84. @SFG
    Naah. You can support representative democracy in the West and sharia in Arabic countries. It's up to the people in each nation to decide--and that includes popular revolution. It's just none of our business to tell people in other countries how to run their country unless they're threatening us.

    What would you propose other countries do if an extreme wing of the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt (by “popular revolution” no doubt) and set out to exterminate its 40 million Coptic Christians?

    • Replies: @MEexpert
    Same thing they did when ISIS was killing Christians in Iraq and Syria. Nothing.
  85. @attilathehen
    You may be the exception concerning drugs/sex but your IQ/reasoning abilities are questionable.

    The average Somalian IQ is 68. There is no government or even a normal society in Somalia because of their IQ (ever heard of Somali terrorists?). Please read the "Bell Curve" and it shows that a country/society needs a minimum IQ of 90 to be civilized. Blacks/Asians have the lowest IQs. Caucasians have the highest IQs. Libertarians are possessed by the insane idea that people (left alone) can band together and form free, functioning societies.

    Also, we have Somalians in Minnesota. How are they working out for the USA? Why aren't they trying to convince Democratic, socialistic Minnesotans to get rid of their state government? Why are almost all of them welfare dependents?

    Why aren't American libertarians trying to get to know the Minnesota Somalis so they can find out about the libertarian state in Somalia and how we can bring it to the USA?

    I’m not disagreeing with your policy positions but I think your references to IQ need elaborating and refining. No doubt IQ tests administered to Somalis have provided average figures like 68 and I don’t take the point that the tests are necessarily worthless because not culture fair. They may well be the more or less culture fair Raven’s Progressive Matrices but still that still leaves test sophistication, familiarity with pen or pencil use, nutrition and disease (not least debilitating worms) amongst factors that might affect IQ test results in year 1 but much less 5 years later. Ron Unz’s demolition of the Lynn and Vanhenen figures should be born in mind. It is also a question whether average IQ is anything like as important if the social structure allows for an intelligent educated aristocracy.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    World history can be summed up in two words: IQ.

    Name one majority black city in the USA that functions like majority white cities.

    Name one African country that is the equivalent of any countries in Europe or Japan.

    We are at a point in history where we can see the entire world and can notice differences.

    These differences are IQ which are tied to race.
  86. @jtgw
    Actually, East Asians have the highest IQs according to studies cited in the Bell Curve and similar works, higher than Caucasians. I'm sure average national IQ influences development, but so does the type of government and the amount of power government has over people's lives. There's plenty of evidence that life in Somalia has improved over the past two decades of "anarchy":

    https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it

    As I said before, Somalia was at a low point in the mid-1990s (Black Hawk Down era) because it had just emerged from decades of brutal socialist dictatorship that had torn at the fabric of Somali society. Under Barre, people were forbidden from associating in traditional clans and the government was trying to hammer out a brave new Somali identity, with predictable results. Somalia is just another lesson in why socialism is bad.

    Actually, East Asians (all Asians) are notorious test cheaters, so though the Bell Curve is a good starting point for IQ studies, there is more.

    If East Asians are smarter, why did the Industrial Revolution (and most inventions) occur in European/Caucasian societies? Why did the Japanese Westernize and why didn’t the West Easternize (i.e., turn Japanese)? Why do Asians copy the West?

    “Life has improved in Somalia.” “Somalia is another lesson bad socialism.”

    Are you Caucasian, or Asian/Jewish/black?

    You did not answer my questions about Somalians in Minnesota.

  87. @unpc downunder
    As a moderate nationalist I find the most disturbing aspect of modern Islam is the idea of developing a global caliphate. This seems to be the modern Islamic equivalent of western globalism/ultra-liberalism. This is also the primary reason why I oppose the spread of Muslim culture in the West. It's just another example of modern globalists trying to trample over local customs and undermining national sovereignty.

    How can you treat the ISIS aspiration for a global caliphate as equivalent to the push to spread “western style globalism/ultra-liberalism**” except in some minimalist areas of verbal comparability such as something as trite as actually believing the world would be a better place if everyone accepted their principles?

    ** whatever that is

  88. Westerners are fools who buy into any idea of vetting, as entry of Muslims of any kind is slow-motion suicide.

    Total exclusion and repatriation are the only policies that will save the addle-brained West.

    Foreigners not blessed with citizenship or the possibility thereof must be second-class residents, just as I should be in Japan or China. Welfare, housing, tuition reduction, free medical care, or “birthright” citizenship? Absurd.

    Shariah points the way to what second-class status means for Muslims we stupidly allow in or permit to remain. Resident Muslims must be required to swear that the Koran has no place in the West, that it teaches a false doctrine of superiority, that shariah is forever an impossibility in the West. False swearing requires immediate removal.

    Vetting is for chumps and is evidence of an amazing ignorance of the wildly incompatible nature of Islam.

  89. @Maj. Kong
    Shia Islam has a well defined clerical hierarchy, liberals including notably Stephen Colbert, like to compare it to Catholicism.

    http://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2014/spring/vali-nasr-profile/

    For one thing the “Real Islam” and “Muslim Behavior” are two different things. The Real Islam is already moderate and does not need reform. According to Qur’an, the religion (Islam) was perfected in the life time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Shia Islam is the Real Islam.

    After the death of Muhammad (PBUH), people who had accepted Islam to gain power did so. They were not entitled to the leadership. They killed whoever opposed them, just like ISIS of today. To gain acceptance by the people, whatever they did they called it Islam and thus political Islam was born. That is why we have two versions. One is the real one and the other is the political Islam. Political Islam is unjust, tyrannical and oppressive. In real Islam everyone has rights including the women. Remember, Islam is the first religion that gave inheritance rights to women 1500 years ago.

    If all Muslims followed the “Real Islam” we can have true democracy, as long as, it is within the Qur’anic guidelines.

  90. @Wizard of Oz
    What would you propose other countries do if an extreme wing of the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt (by "popular revolution" no doubt) and set out to exterminate its 40 million Coptic Christians?

    Same thing they did when ISIS was killing Christians in Iraq and Syria. Nothing.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You would support that non response if the new Egyptian government announced that Hitler was too shy and too easygoing and that Mohammed X (the new Egyptian president) was going to show the world how an efficient and complete genocide should be carried out starting with all 40 million Copts?

    You are I assume answering my question and not one you may have rewritten in your mind?

  91. @Wizard of Oz
    I'm not disagreeing with your policy positions but I think your references to IQ need elaborating and refining. No doubt IQ tests administered to Somalis have provided average figures like 68 and I don't take the point that the tests are necessarily worthless because not culture fair. They may well be the more or less culture fair Raven's Progressive Matrices but still that still leaves test sophistication, familiarity with pen or pencil use, nutrition and disease (not least debilitating worms) amongst factors that might affect IQ test results in year 1 but much less 5 years later. Ron Unz's demolition of the Lynn and Vanhenen figures should be born in mind. It is also a question whether average IQ is anything like as important if the social structure allows for an intelligent educated aristocracy.

    World history can be summed up in two words: IQ.

    Name one majority black city in the USA that functions like majority white cities.

    Name one African country that is the equivalent of any countries in Europe or Japan.

    We are at a point in history where we can see the entire world and can notice differences.

    These differences are IQ which are tied to race.

  92. If world history is so summed up it is certainly in a rather inadequate abridged edition**.

    Otherwise I won’t quibble with what you wrote.

    ** I had to say that because I loathe oversimplifications and rhetorical overstatements. But I had better flesh out my reaction somewhat, so…. consider the importance to the industrial revolution and the shape of modernity of the money made from enslaving West Africans. Are you intending to be cute and assert or imply that it was the existence of suitably low IQ Africans which allowed the slightly higher members of a much higher IQ country to exploit them to positive economic effect? Still won’t wash. They had to be darkskinned tropical people to work long hours in the cane and cotton fields so it wasn’t all IQ.

    • Replies: @iffen
    They had to be darkskinned tropical people to work long hours

    This is factually incorrect and is disproved by the millions of white share-croppers who worked, survived and reproduced in the American south up until WWII.
  93. @MEexpert
    Same thing they did when ISIS was killing Christians in Iraq and Syria. Nothing.

    You would support that non response if the new Egyptian government announced that Hitler was too shy and too easygoing and that Mohammed X (the new Egyptian president) was going to show the world how an efficient and complete genocide should be carried out starting with all 40 million Copts?

    You are I assume answering my question and not one you may have rewritten in your mind?

    • Replies: @MEexpert
    Right. I was answering your question. I am not advocating non-response. These countries sat on their "hands" while Israel expelled millions of Palestinians (Christian Palestinians included) from their land, or ISIS slaughtered anyone having different beliefs (except Jews of course), like Shias, Christians, and Kurds, etc. Jews were spared because Israel supports ISIS.
    , @jacques sheete

    You would support that non response if the new Egyptian government announced that Hitler was too shy and too easygoing and that Mohammed X (the new Egyptian president) was going to show the world how an efficient and complete genocide should be carried out starting with all 40 million Copts?
     
    If he's an American, he very well could support a non response. In fact, he may even support a genocide or two with both barrels. Never mind Hitler, look how Lenin and Stalin's murderous antics were pretty much ignored.

    Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 7-10 million Ukraninas in the years 1932-3 yet nothing was done to him. In fact, FDR decided to recognize the USSR in 1933, then went on to support his murderous rampage against Hitler. Note also that 1933 was the year Hitler was just coming into power.

    I could also mention the numerous colonial atrocities of the various European empires and how they got overlooked too.

    The US record with respect to genocides isn't so good....

  94. @Maj. Kong
    Shia Islam has a well defined clerical hierarchy, liberals including notably Stephen Colbert, like to compare it to Catholicism.

    http://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2014/spring/vali-nasr-profile/

    There are a number of leading Shia religious authorities, and there is a measure of choice in selecting whoever you feel is the best for you. At present, particularly outside Iran, the status of Grand Ayatollah Sistani is probably the highest. A friend who attended an audience with him mentions that a group of immigrants to America were worried about how to bring up their children. The ayatollah said it was important that they blend into the general society, and, for example, send their children to public schools. It was important also to get religious instruction every week.

    • Replies: @Ace
    Sistani is the same gentleman who considers the kuffar to be in the same category of things such as urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, and pigs, which is to say, things that are unclean.
  95. @Greasy William
    The girl in the pic is hot.

    I really like Muslim girls but as I grow older I think that Latinas are hotter. I would currently rank the races like this in terms of female looks:

    1. Latinas
    2. Iranian
    3. Pakistani/Indian
    4. Arab
    5. Slavic
    6. Armenian/Chechen/Georgian/Turkish
    7. Southern Euro
    8. Ethiopian
    9. Nordic
    10. Western/Central Euro
    11. Northeast Asian

    Arab women, even attractive ones, have a cruel look to them. The woman in the picture is no different. Avoid at all costs.

  96. @Wizard of Oz
    If world history is so summed up it is certainly in a rather inadequate abridged edition**.

    Otherwise I won't quibble with what you wrote.

    ** I had to say that because I loathe oversimplifications and rhetorical overstatements. But I had better flesh out my reaction somewhat, so.... consider the importance to the industrial revolution and the shape of modernity of the money made from enslaving West Africans. Are you intending to be cute and assert or imply that it was the existence of suitably low IQ Africans which allowed the slightly higher members of a much higher IQ country to exploit them to positive economic effect? Still won't wash. They had to be darkskinned tropical people to work long hours in the cane and cotton fields so it wasn't all IQ.

    They had to be darkskinned tropical people to work long hours

    This is factually incorrect and is disproved by the millions of white share-croppers who worked, survived and reproduced in the American south up until WWII.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed and even in the case of sugar cane production high wage Australia did it with white labour before mechanisation and after the "immigration" (blackbirding?) of islanders ceased. Perhaps the European populations weren't at the Malthusian point at which actual slaves weren't needed in Jamaica in the 18th century?

    Perhaps, subsequently, the rising prosperity of a rising population meant that demand for sugar raised its price to a point where free white cane cutters could be afforded. Same maybe for cotton?

    Oh what a tangle of extra verbiage my nitpicking gets me into.
  97. @Greg Bacon
    Don't worry about Islam Sharia law being imposed on the USA, Congress already sanctioned Judaism's Noahide Laws to rule over us GOY back in 1991.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFhSAcnXjFY

    That is one of the funniest videos I’ve ever seen. There’s no way anyone can believe that, is there?

  98. @Wizard of Oz
    You would support that non response if the new Egyptian government announced that Hitler was too shy and too easygoing and that Mohammed X (the new Egyptian president) was going to show the world how an efficient and complete genocide should be carried out starting with all 40 million Copts?

    You are I assume answering my question and not one you may have rewritten in your mind?

    Right. I was answering your question. I am not advocating non-response. These countries sat on their “hands” while Israel expelled millions of Palestinians (Christian Palestinians included) from their land, or ISIS slaughtered anyone having different beliefs (except Jews of course), like Shias, Christians, and Kurds, etc. Jews were spared because Israel supports ISIS.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    But you haven't answered my question as to what policy you would advocate in my hypothetical Egyptian Coptic genocide case.
  99. @MarkinLA
    Iran is basically the center of the Shia. How much influence do the mullahs in Iran have over the Shia elsewhere? I don't think they have much.

    I disagree. Majority of the Irani population is Shia but Iran is not the center of the Shias. Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the top cleric in Iraq, has the most following all around the world. He advises his followers to blend in with the society while keeping the real Islamic values and practices in mind.

  100. @jacques sheete
    Pretty decent set of replies there.

    However, despite the fact that "The Scriptures of Christianity do not have Christians as military conquerors, or Christianity’s founders as such, and it is not spread through military action," there is plenty of evidence that so called "Christianity" at least was sometimes spread through the use of violence.

    The Spanish Empire for one used that excuse extensively as did the US. In fact, the US went into the Philippines to "Christianize those "heathens" even though they had been under Christian domination for almost two centuries before the US was even a country.

    Additionally, Josephus tells us that the Jews aalso employed military action and forced conversions.

    So the argument that Islam is inherently evil because violence is supposedly written into its founding documents while the other big religions are free of that taint seems specious in practice. In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.

    … there is plenty of evidence that so called “Christianity” at least was sometimes spread through the use of violence.

    Quite true, but one has to look at history. Christianity started out as a groups of various sects that stood apart from the state until Constantine made it the Roman state religion (and began persecuting the “unorthodox”). It was spread in Germanic Europe by means of a “translation” called the Heliand in which Jesus was presented as a Germanic warrior and the Apostles as his Thanes.

    Malachi Martin wrote an interesting book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church that explored Roman Catholicism’s relationship to secular power. You would probably find it interesting.

    So the argument that Islam is inherently evil because violence is supposedly written into its founding documents while the other big religions are free of that taint seems specious in practice.

    I would argue that it is not a matter of good and evil, but of the ability of the religion (taken as a symbolic monolith) to deal with the violent portion of its population.

    Christianity has a body of scripture that, taken as a whole, rejects violence as a means to accomplish “God’s will”. Devout, but peaceful, Muslims are particularly handicapped in that matter due to the clear example of Muhammad’s life and the Koran. The jihadis have a large body of scripture and tradition on their side.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    The jihadis have a large body of scripture and tradition on their side.
     
    Like I keep saying, I doubt if that makes much of a difference. People are gonna do what they want no matter what's written.

    Our own "constitution" and how effectively it limits the ruling classes is a prime example of the concept.
  101. @sarz
    There are a number of leading Shia religious authorities, and there is a measure of choice in selecting whoever you feel is the best for you. At present, particularly outside Iran, the status of Grand Ayatollah Sistani is probably the highest. A friend who attended an audience with him mentions that a group of immigrants to America were worried about how to bring up their children. The ayatollah said it was important that they blend into the general society, and, for example, send their children to public schools. It was important also to get religious instruction every week.

    Sistani is the same gentleman who considers the kuffar to be in the same category of things such as urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, and pigs, which is to say, things that are unclean.

    • Replies: @MEexpert
    I guess that is why he allowed a delegation of Christian mourners to the holy city of Karbala and Najaf. Stop listening to neocon propaganda. Do some research on your own before talking this nonsense.
  102. @lavoisier
    All Religions are intrinsically dogmatic and intolerant. They have to be if they can have any internal standing as a repository of revealed truth. With that being said Christianity has had its reformation, and there are many secular Jews who do not buy into religious orthodoxy. Islam, unfortunately, has not had a reformation and apostasy remains a capital crime in the Islamic world. Hence, intolerance is the order of the day.

    Islam is different than the other religions, primarily because its adherents are a little too serious about their faith.

    It is people who are intolerant, not religions. We can see this intolerance even in the comments of liberals…”basket of deplorable” anyone. And even the threads here are full of people so full of themselves and their favorite ideologies that they’ll happily bash Muslims without even having lived with them.

    Btw, apostasy is not a capital crime in the Quran. There is considerable difference of opinion amongst Islamic scholars on this point. Like I said, it’s people.

    I agree with you that Islam does need a Islamic Reformation. For that Western imperialism and experimental democracy ( using their favorite bogeymen, kings, dictators, assorted and selected Democrats) has to end.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Having found the origin of the quote that I criticised in my immediately preceding comment replying to Svigor I see that I may have been unfair to your emphasis because of course much of the problem of (undesirable) intolerance is individual. However you do say "not religions" and in the light of your agreeing that Islam needs a Reformation that is clearly a misstatement of your position.

    It is Interesting how long it took for the Reformation to produce tolerance in Christianity - even partially with side glances at those tribal Micks/Prots and abortions formally criminalised etc . Like democracy a tolerant Islam is probably going to require prosperity widely spread to be consistent with comfortable civilised life. Overpopulation/excessive fertility, especially amongst the uneducated, remains perhaps the greatest threat to our grandchildren enjoying a comfortable world which hasn't destroyed too much that is good (off-beat question: will it prove easier to restore Palmyra's ISIS destroyed heritage in 2060 or to reproduce a dinosaur?).
  103. @TheJester

    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.
     
    And there won't be. Voting in a democracy asserts the human will above the Will of Allah (pbuh); it's blasphemy and anti-Islamic. If you want to know how Allah wants society organized, you do not vote on it, you research it ... via Islamic scholars. Law comes from Allah as pronounced in the Quran and certified by the scholars. The key point is that the Quran is the word of Allah, not the interpreted word of God as in the Christian Bible that leaves room for honest differences of opinion.

    Okay, that takes are of voting and legislatures. Now, what about the executive? Since laws are researched and pronounced by the Islamic scholars, the only thing remaining is for the scholars to legitimize a strong man to enforce these laws. It's like the town council hiring the sheriff.

    Islamic communities in Western Europe and the United States have no choice but to follow Sharia Law and the Islamic organization of the state. That's what it means to be Muslim. Saudi Arabia represents the epitome of the Islamic state, with the Wahhabi scholars legitimizing the Saudi Royal family to enforce the Will of Allah. Yes, many Muslims prefer to live the western way of life. They are bad Muslims, just as Catholics who divorce and remarry, practice abortion, and willfully commit the Seven Deadly Sins are bad Catholics.

    I've heard Muslims described as "married monks". There is truth to that. Living under Islam is like living in a monastery under the Rule of Saint Benedict -- with both Saint Benedict and Mohammed living in the same historical era. Monastics who disobey the Rule threaten the monastic community. They are apostates who have to be eliminated. The catch is that people have no choice but to live in Islamic monasteries. Allah has spoken; that is the way that Allah mandates that society be organized.

    However, in practice, Muslims like to escape their monasteries and monastic way of life on vacations to the West. This is where Muslim men can drink, gamble, and whore and Muslim women can wear bikinis. I've visited a number of Islamic homes in Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East where I was shown family photos from their last European vacation -- beer stein in hand and bikini on the beach. I also accompanied many Muslims on business trips to the West. I couldn't keep up with them ... the partying. Having worked, lived, and traveled in the Middle East for 14 years, I finally got out of the business when I had had enough of Islamic culture, especially the pervasive hypocrisy wrapped within superficial piety.

    As summary, there is no room in Islamic culture for individual freedom and personal conscience, at least while living in the monastery ... and there is no escaping the monastery because the the monastery is the state. That's captured in the word "Islam", which means submission or surrender to the Will of Allah as communicated to us in the Quran.

    Muslim immigrants will without question be spreading their monastic way of life and Sharia Law throughout Europe and the Americas. They have too. That's what it means to be Muslim (although as a practical matter they will then find it hard to find places to vacation and party).

    I agree with you that Muslims same as other religions are not ideal representatives of their religion. But why is this bar so high for Muslims. The bar should be high for those who are in the business of spreading the religion like mullahs, priests, rabbis and so on, but the average Muslim will cheat, lie, do some good and some bad.

    As to the rest of your answer I would respectfully differ. Saudi Arabia is no epitome of Islamic civilization or legal/religious system of Islam. You offer the worst example since it suits your argument. In fact historically the greatest Islamic scholars and theologians have ended up in jail for opposing the government of the time. Examples abound__ Imam Abu Hanifa, shafi, Malik, and Imam Hanbal, the Four Great Imams all ended up behind bars.

    However, i agree that Muslim countries shouldn’t be enamored of Western democracy. They should borrow the best ideas of tolerance and equality before law etc, and eventually come up with a system that suits them.

  104. @Sean
    Hobbes didn't just insist religion could not be allowed to make claims on i's own authority, his denunciation of Robert Boyle to the government on the ground that Boyle was claiming to know what was true (about vacuums) without reference to lawful authority was in a similar vein and showed Hobbes thought even science could not be allowed to be arbitrator of what was true either. Science has largely taken the place of religion, and that is why economists can't understand anyone calling for immigration restriction, and climate researchers are not much more tolerant of dissenting views about their own hobby horse:- CBS, Time Editor Push 'Deadly' Global Warming: 'Not Subject to Politics'...Or Is It?.

    It is the commonest brickbat of argument in English to say such and such a view is held in the same way as a religious view, because religion is seen a joke in the West. Democracy creating a consensus discounting scientific meliorism as the supreme authority was the next step. The decisions to Brexit and elect Trump show that science has been relegated, for a time, to the same status as religion. A generation or two hence the received wisdom of experts will have got back in line with the democratic majority, and then it will be time for another revolution of the people, because the experts never really know as much as they think.

    because the experts never really know as much as they think.

    That’s sooo true. And that’s a huge reason why they feel compelled to slap the label of “science” (or “democracy”) on just about any garbage they spew.

    Today, in America at least, both “science” and “democracy” are de facto religions, complete with (usually money grubbing) cults.

    The way it works is that we’re supposed to worship anything they present under either of those two labels, believe it without doubt, and send ‘em shekels for the privilege.

    99% of today’s ‘experts” are nothing more than the oracles of old.

  105. @attilathehen
    You may be the exception concerning drugs/sex but your IQ/reasoning abilities are questionable.

    The average Somalian IQ is 68. There is no government or even a normal society in Somalia because of their IQ (ever heard of Somali terrorists?). Please read the "Bell Curve" and it shows that a country/society needs a minimum IQ of 90 to be civilized. Blacks/Asians have the lowest IQs. Caucasians have the highest IQs. Libertarians are possessed by the insane idea that people (left alone) can band together and form free, functioning societies.

    Also, we have Somalians in Minnesota. How are they working out for the USA? Why aren't they trying to convince Democratic, socialistic Minnesotans to get rid of their state government? Why are almost all of them welfare dependents?

    Why aren't American libertarians trying to get to know the Minnesota Somalis so they can find out about the libertarian state in Somalia and how we can bring it to the USA?

    Your comment is nothing more than the supercilious braying of yet another ignoramus yapping about something he hasn’t the first clue of, i.e., IQ testing.

    If you have any self respect and want to avoid making a fool of yourself in public, then you may want to consider spending less time reading Fwed (High IQ) Reedian bilgewater and getting up to speed on what it’s all about. It ain’t what you think it is.

    BTW, forget about Somalis. You don’t know a flippin thing about them either.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    WOW! As an American who can read (yes, I know a shock), I don't know a thing about Somalis.

    First, are you Jewish/black/Asian? Is your other half from these groups? Or maybe you are a degenerate Christian who believes Christianity can work for low IQers.

    How about those Somalis in Minnesota? How's that integration going?

    Didn't a Somali run into college students just recently?


    Your comment points to IQ deficiency or degeneracy within yourself.

    You can't handle the truth.
  106. @SFG
    Naah. You can support representative democracy in the West and sharia in Arabic countries. It's up to the people in each nation to decide--and that includes popular revolution. It's just none of our business to tell people in other countries how to run their country unless they're threatening us.

    Representative democracy in America has always been a joke. The constitution itself was proof of the concept and the anti-federalists were correct.

    Like I’ve posted often, democracy of any sort only works for relatively small groups and even then it typically, if not inevitably, rapidly devolves into tyranny.

  107. @Svigor

    So the argument that Islam is inherently evil because violence is supposedly written into its founding documents while the other big religions are free of that taint seems specious in practice. In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.
     
    That isn't my argument. I don't have any knee-jerk reaction to a militant, expansionist religion that enshrines conversion and dominion by the sword. I wouldn't call it evil. Apt to getting its ass kicked a lot, maybe.

    I would call it inherently violent, militant, and expansionist, though. Mohammed is their model, the way Christ is the model for Christians. You can take anything and commit violence in that thing's name, but with Islam, it's the converse; you can't take the militancy out.

    Mohammed lived the life of a bandit, executed prisoners, took and kept slaves, had many wives (way more than four), and had sex with children. The contrast with Christ could not be more stark.

    In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.
     
    C'mon, man. Relativism has its place, but Scripture matters. Law matters. Divine precedent matters.

    Mark: Mormons aren't really Christians (just ask a Catholic), and Protestants don't take any of that mess seriously. As for the Orthodox, I wouldn't know. Other side of the planet.

    Does it make sense for moral principles to bind only certain groups of people and not others?
     
    It depends on the group, obviously, but yes, of course it does.

    Singh: ah yes, south Asia, the pinnacle of human civilization. I'd talk some trash to you, but your civilization is probably punishment enough.

    I really like Muslim girls but as I grow older I think that Latinas are hotter. I would currently rank the races like this in terms of female looks:
     
    Too bad so few of your greasy coracialists agree.

    C’mon, man. Relativism has its place, but Scripture matters. Law matters. Divine precedent matters.

    They matter to philosphers, but even they only rarely agree.

    The man on the street, no matter what he professes, acts as if none of it really matters.

    I would call [Islam] inherently violent, militant, and expansionist, though.

    That in no way distinguishes it from the other two major Abrahamic religions.

    In fact, Christ himself was driven to violence on occasion and I bet it happened more often than we’ve been led to believe. Furthermore, his father was and should still be notorious for his use of threats and violence.

    So don’t gimmee any of this nonsense about only one religion being based on violence. We’re all in the same boat, and we all pretty much stink the same.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Now, it is about the degree of violence displayed. Islam theorizes and condones the use of violence.
    If you pretend to compare the 'violence' of Christ against the money-changers (what other instances of violence can you quote) with actual beheadings, burning alive, enslavement of 'infidels', you are a liar.
  108. @Wizard of Oz
    Interesting that quixotic ("Quixote like") can be ambiguous. You use it in the sense of unrealistically optimistic but when quixotic tendencies lead to high minded foreign adventures I would say it is time for Sancho Panza to counsel his master in common sense.

    Interesting that quixotic (“Quixote like”) can be ambiguous. You use it in the sense of unrealistically optimistic but when quixotic tendencies lead to high minded foreign adventures I would say it is time for Sancho Panza to counsel his master in common sense.

    You are correct on all counts.

  109. @Wizard of Oz
    You would support that non response if the new Egyptian government announced that Hitler was too shy and too easygoing and that Mohammed X (the new Egyptian president) was going to show the world how an efficient and complete genocide should be carried out starting with all 40 million Copts?

    You are I assume answering my question and not one you may have rewritten in your mind?

    You would support that non response if the new Egyptian government announced that Hitler was too shy and too easygoing and that Mohammed X (the new Egyptian president) was going to show the world how an efficient and complete genocide should be carried out starting with all 40 million Copts?

    If he’s an American, he very well could support a non response. In fact, he may even support a genocide or two with both barrels. Never mind Hitler, look how Lenin and Stalin’s murderous antics were pretty much ignored.

    Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 7-10 million Ukraninas in the years 1932-3 yet nothing was done to him. In fact, FDR decided to recognize the USSR in 1933, then went on to support his murderous rampage against Hitler. Note also that 1933 was the year Hitler was just coming into power.

    I could also mention the numerous colonial atrocities of the various European empires and how they got overlooked too.

    The US record with respect to genocides isn’t so good….

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You suggest a theory of activity in the American hive which has it sending out in spring a swarm of pronatalist missionaries and a few years on a winter swarm of arms salesmen to the genocidally inclined dictators. I trust you have an anticipatory change.org petition drafted for the latest generation of those who value that great constitutional right to petition the Congress.
  110. @another fred

    ... there is plenty of evidence that so called “Christianity” at least was sometimes spread through the use of violence.
     
    Quite true, but one has to look at history. Christianity started out as a groups of various sects that stood apart from the state until Constantine made it the Roman state religion (and began persecuting the "unorthodox"). It was spread in Germanic Europe by means of a "translation" called the Heliand in which Jesus was presented as a Germanic warrior and the Apostles as his Thanes.

    Malachi Martin wrote an interesting book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church that explored Roman Catholicism's relationship to secular power. You would probably find it interesting.

    So the argument that Islam is inherently evil because violence is supposedly written into its founding documents while the other big religions are free of that taint seems specious in practice.
     
    I would argue that it is not a matter of good and evil, but of the ability of the religion (taken as a symbolic monolith) to deal with the violent portion of its population.

    Christianity has a body of scripture that, taken as a whole, rejects violence as a means to accomplish "God's will". Devout, but peaceful, Muslims are particularly handicapped in that matter due to the clear example of Muhammad's life and the Koran. The jihadis have a large body of scripture and tradition on their side.

    The jihadis have a large body of scripture and tradition on their side.

    Like I keep saying, I doubt if that makes much of a difference. People are gonna do what they want no matter what’s written.

    Our own “constitution” and how effectively it limits the ruling classes is a prime example of the concept.

    • Replies: @another fred

    Like I keep saying, I doubt if that makes much of a difference. People are gonna do what they want no matter what’s written.
     
    Do you really think that thousands of jihadis would have flocked to Syria without the lure of the Caliphate?
    , @Talha
    JS - honestly - you have my deep respect for trying to keep it real on this thread and putting people's feet to the fire. I thought over multiple times whether I should throw my weight in because of how much nonsense and ignorance is being thrown around on this thread. I have three boys; you know that feeling when you walk into a room and see it as such a mess that you don't know where exactly to begin...so you walk right back out? Then you know how I was feeling.

    But it was grinding on me seeing you try to dispel all the nonsense on your own - so I thought I'd ride shotgun. There is way too much crap to shovel out, but hey maybe we can move enough aside for standing room only.

    Peace - and may God preserve you and your family with honor in this world and the next.
    , @Ace
    There's a subtle difference here, Jacques. The Constitution says do X but the backsliders and grifters went ahead and did Y.

    The Koran, however, says do X and the jihadis just went ahead and did X.
  111. @jacques sheete

    The jihadis have a large body of scripture and tradition on their side.
     
    Like I keep saying, I doubt if that makes much of a difference. People are gonna do what they want no matter what's written.

    Our own "constitution" and how effectively it limits the ruling classes is a prime example of the concept.

    Like I keep saying, I doubt if that makes much of a difference. People are gonna do what they want no matter what’s written.

    Do you really think that thousands of jihadis would have flocked to Syria without the lure of the Caliphate?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey AF,

    Do you really think that thousands of jihadis would have flocked to Syria without the lure of the Caliphate?
     
    Of course not. The better questions are:
    1) Why haven't millions of jihadis flocked to Syria?
    2) Why have all the top ulema of the world denounced it? Scroll to bottom to see list of signatories:
    http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf
    3) Why should we take the interpretation of gun-toting twenty year-olds seriously over the writings and pronouncements of men who have spent 40/50 years of their lives dedicated to the study of religion?
    4) Why do the lion's share of them have the most basic knowledge of Islam - accordign to their own leaked documents?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-documents-leak-recruits-islam-sharia-religion-faith-syria-iraq-a7193086.html

    Name me one scholar of any weight or institution (like Azhar, Qarawain, Sarhanpur, etc.) in the Muslim world that supports Daesh. If it is the case that their interpretation is sound, there should be plenty of scholars who support them that can easily be found from the Maghreb to the Mashriq.

    Establishment of the Caliphate is an obligation of this religion upon the whole Ummah - anyone who studies our tradition knows this to be the case. We are not ashamed of this; it is both a goal and trust and gift from God...only if we are worthy and deserving - which we are (on the whole) proving that we are miserably incapable of the responsibility as yet.

    The assumption that Daesh represents a Caliphate or even the correct methodology to establish one is a joke - also according to anyone who studies our tradition.

    This is Shaykh Hamza Maqbul - a scholar of both the Hanafi and Maliki schools of law (a very rare specialization) making things clear and giving some tough love and sound advice to some young Muslims:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knQTe8qxJmg

    Peace.

  112. @jacques sheete
    Your comment is nothing more than the supercilious braying of yet another ignoramus yapping about something he hasn't the first clue of, i.e., IQ testing.

    If you have any self respect and want to avoid making a fool of yourself in public, then you may want to consider spending less time reading Fwed (High IQ) Reedian bilgewater and getting up to speed on what it's all about. It ain't what you think it is.

    BTW, forget about Somalis. You don't know a flippin thing about them either.

    WOW! As an American who can read (yes, I know a shock), I don’t know a thing about Somalis.

    First, are you Jewish/black/Asian? Is your other half from these groups? Or maybe you are a degenerate Christian who believes Christianity can work for low IQers.

    How about those Somalis in Minnesota? How’s that integration going?

    Didn’t a Somali run into college students just recently?

    Your comment points to IQ deficiency or degeneracy within yourself.

    You can’t handle the truth.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey attila,

    JS is right; Somalia is better without a central government - he has metrics on his side:
    “Such was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to its citizens than good. The government’s collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper investigates the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.”
    http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

    Our system doesn't work for them, their system doesn't work for us. We should all be mature enough to recognize this.

    Thousands of Somalis are going back now that things have gotten better - we should encourage this and avoid destabilizing the country:
    "Going back: Somalia’'s diaspora return home - Thousands of Somalis have left comfortable, secure lives in the West to return to Somalia."
    http://www.trtworld.com/mea/going-back-somalias-diaspora-return-home-51506

    Peace.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your somewhat idiosyncratic approach to prose construction leaves the connection you intend between your last two sentences to be guessed at.

    As an IQ expert do you consider that not being able to handle the truth is a cognitive deficiency? Always? Sometimes? In JS's case? Depending on some unstated factor? Or are you referring only to an emotional syndrome? Genetically based? Correlated with IQ? Causally conmected to IQ measured cognitive function?

    There, no more complaints please of failure to reply from this poor Wizard apprentice (contributions to fare to Kansas accepted gratefully even if the Kansas connection is just an opportunistic add-on courtesy of some of the older? UR commenters)

  113. @Ace
    Sistani is the same gentleman who considers the kuffar to be in the same category of things such as urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, and pigs, which is to say, things that are unclean.

    I guess that is why he allowed a delegation of Christian mourners to the holy city of Karbala and Najaf. Stop listening to neocon propaganda. Do some research on your own before talking this nonsense.

  114. It is people who are intolerant, not religions. We can see this intolerance even in the comments of liberals…”basket of deplorable” anyone. And even the threads here are full of people so full of themselves and their favorite ideologies that they’ll happily bash Muslims without even having lived with them.

    I have opinions on the Moon landings, despite not having been on the Moon to witness the event.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    It is sophistical, though not very sophisticated intellectually, to say that it is people not religions that are intolerant.

    Of course it is not absolutely clear whether a linguistic or empirical truth is being asserted.

    To cut through ..... would the one you quote fail to understand and be able to discuss rationally the proposition that the religion of Jesus is more tolerant than the religion of Yahweh and El in the Torah?
    , @raphee
    But that opinion does not extend to what it felt like to be on the moon. That only Armstrong and the rest of his colleagues can testify to.
  115. because the experts never really know as much as they think.

    That’s sooo true. And that’s a huge reason why they feel compelled to slap the label of “science” (or “democracy”) on just about any garbage they spew.

    Today, in America at least, both “science” and “democracy” are de facto religions, complete with (usually money grubbing) cults.

    The way it works is that we’re supposed to worship anything they present under either of those two labels, believe it without doubt, and send ‘em shekels for the privilege.

    99% of today’s ‘experts” are nothing more than the oracles of old.

    True, perhaps, but irrelevant, because:

    They matter to philosphers, but even they only rarely agree.

    The man on the street, no matter what he professes, acts as if none of it really matters.

    As for the Old Testament vs. the New, well, the New Testament contained a lot of revisions.

  116. @Svigor

    So the argument that Islam is inherently evil because violence is supposedly written into its founding documents while the other big religions are free of that taint seems specious in practice. In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.
     
    That isn't my argument. I don't have any knee-jerk reaction to a militant, expansionist religion that enshrines conversion and dominion by the sword. I wouldn't call it evil. Apt to getting its ass kicked a lot, maybe.

    I would call it inherently violent, militant, and expansionist, though. Mohammed is their model, the way Christ is the model for Christians. You can take anything and commit violence in that thing's name, but with Islam, it's the converse; you can't take the militancy out.

    Mohammed lived the life of a bandit, executed prisoners, took and kept slaves, had many wives (way more than four), and had sex with children. The contrast with Christ could not be more stark.

    In my experience, people practice their own variations of religion no matter what the so called “scripture” says.
     
    C'mon, man. Relativism has its place, but Scripture matters. Law matters. Divine precedent matters.

    Mark: Mormons aren't really Christians (just ask a Catholic), and Protestants don't take any of that mess seriously. As for the Orthodox, I wouldn't know. Other side of the planet.

    Does it make sense for moral principles to bind only certain groups of people and not others?
     
    It depends on the group, obviously, but yes, of course it does.

    Singh: ah yes, south Asia, the pinnacle of human civilization. I'd talk some trash to you, but your civilization is probably punishment enough.

    I really like Muslim girls but as I grow older I think that Latinas are hotter. I would currently rank the races like this in terms of female looks:
     
    Too bad so few of your greasy coracialists agree.

    I would call it inherently violent, militant, and expansionist, though. Mohammed is their model, the way Christ is the model for Christians. You can take anything and commit violence in that thing’s name, but with Islam, it’s the converse; you can’t take the militancy out.

    Boy are you ignorant. Which history book are you reading? Stop reading Pat Geller or Robert Spencer. The word Islam itself means peace. Don’t read the neocon propaganda.

    Mohammed lived the life of a bandit, executed prisoners, took and kept slaves, had many wives (way more than four), and had sex with children. The contrast with Christ could not be more stark.

    And you know it how? It is easy to regurgitate the filth the neocons are putting out against Islam by insulting the Prophet, the most peaceful person. Here is what the real scholars of religion have said about him in the past. Do you think they would have said this if what you wrote were true?

    Ah, the personality of Muhammad! (P.B.U.H), it is most difficult to get into the truth of it. To quote Professor Ramakrishna Rao, in one of the best articles from a non-Muslim, “One can only catch a glimpse of it. What a dramatic succession of picturesque scenes. There is Muhammad, the prophet. There is Muhammad the General; Muhammad the King; Muhammad the Warrior; Muhammad the businessman; Muhammad the preacher; Muhammad the philosopher; Muhammad the statesman; Muhammad the Orator; Muhammad the reformer; Muhammad the refuge of orphans; Muhammad the Protector of Slaves; Muhammad the emancipator of women; Muhammad the Law-giver; Muhammad the Judge; Muhammad the Saint.”

    The literature is full of glowing tributes to his personality. French historian, Lamaratine writes, “Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?” (Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.)

    Another western author (Bosworth Smith) continues, “He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope’s pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports.” (Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM, London, 1874, p. 92.)
    Michael Hart puts him at the top of his 100 most influential persons in history. His reasons, “My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level.” (Michael H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, p. 33.)

    “If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls. . . his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words. (Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.)

    Historian Edward Gibbon writes: “It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran. . . The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honours of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”
    Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay, HISTORY OF THE SARACEN EMPIRE, London, 1870, p. 54.

    “It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.”
    Annie Besant, THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD, Madras,1932, p. 4.

    • Replies: @pelagic
    "The word Islam itself means peace."

    No, it means submission, both submission to God (for Muslims) and submission to Islam for everyone else.
    , @Seraphim
    @The word Islam itself means peace.

    "Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness and peace. In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God". Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means "submission" or "surrender". Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb form, and means "one who submits" or "one who surrenders". Believers demonstrate submission to God by serving God, following his commands, and rejecting polytheism." (Wikipedia)

    Submission, surrender after losing the war: "Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant" ("where they make a desert, they call it peace", Tacitus).

  117. @attilathehen
    WOW! As an American who can read (yes, I know a shock), I don't know a thing about Somalis.

    First, are you Jewish/black/Asian? Is your other half from these groups? Or maybe you are a degenerate Christian who believes Christianity can work for low IQers.

    How about those Somalis in Minnesota? How's that integration going?

    Didn't a Somali run into college students just recently?


    Your comment points to IQ deficiency or degeneracy within yourself.

    You can't handle the truth.

    Hey attila,

    JS is right; Somalia is better without a central government – he has metrics on his side:
    “Such was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to its citizens than good. The government’s collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper investigates the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.”

    http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

    Our system doesn’t work for them, their system doesn’t work for us. We should all be mature enough to recognize this.

    Thousands of Somalis are going back now that things have gotten better – we should encourage this and avoid destabilizing the country:
    “Going back: Somalia’’s diaspora return home – Thousands of Somalis have left comfortable, secure lives in the West to return to Somalia.”

    http://www.trtworld.com/mea/going-back-somalias-diaspora-return-home-51506

    Peace.

    • Replies: @pelagic
    One could argue that Somalis are better suited to tribalism or clannishness rather than anarchy. If Somaliland, Puntland and Somalia each attained sovereignty that will not guarantee peace but it will make a lot more sense to those directly involved.

    "Our system doesn’t work for them, their system doesn’t work for us. We should all be mature enough to recognize this."

    Amen to that.
  118. @another fred

    Like I keep saying, I doubt if that makes much of a difference. People are gonna do what they want no matter what’s written.
     
    Do you really think that thousands of jihadis would have flocked to Syria without the lure of the Caliphate?

    Hey AF,

    Do you really think that thousands of jihadis would have flocked to Syria without the lure of the Caliphate?

    Of course not. The better questions are:
    1) Why haven’t millions of jihadis flocked to Syria?
    2) Why have all the top ulema of the world denounced it? Scroll to bottom to see list of signatories:

    http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf

    3) Why should we take the interpretation of gun-toting twenty year-olds seriously over the writings and pronouncements of men who have spent 40/50 years of their lives dedicated to the study of religion?
    4) Why do the lion’s share of them have the most basic knowledge of Islam – accordign to their own leaked documents?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-documents-leak-recruits-islam-sharia-religion-faith-syria-iraq-a7193086.html

    Name me one scholar of any weight or institution (like Azhar, Qarawain, Sarhanpur, etc.) in the Muslim world that supports Daesh. If it is the case that their interpretation is sound, there should be plenty of scholars who support them that can easily be found from the Maghreb to the Mashriq.

    Establishment of the Caliphate is an obligation of this religion upon the whole Ummah – anyone who studies our tradition knows this to be the case. We are not ashamed of this; it is both a goal and trust and gift from God…only if we are worthy and deserving – which we are (on the whole) proving that we are miserably incapable of the responsibility as yet.

    The assumption that Daesh represents a Caliphate or even the correct methodology to establish one is a joke – also according to anyone who studies our tradition.

    This is Shaykh Hamza Maqbul – a scholar of both the Hanafi and Maliki schools of law (a very rare specialization) making things clear and giving some tough love and sound advice to some young Muslims:

    Peace.

    • Replies: @another fred

    The assumption that Daesh represents a Caliphate or even the correct methodology to establish one is a joke – also according to anyone who studies our tradition.
     
    I did not "assume" it, Baghdadi claimed it, and thousands followed. Nor did I claim that his followers were scholars, rather "the violent portion of its population". All populations have a portion of such.

    I did say, and believe, that the example of the prophet's blending of government and religion give Islam and the Ummah problems that other contemporary religions do not have. The expectation of the Mahdi as a political figure does also.

    If the Roman Catholic Church still believed they had a claim to secular power I would see a problem there also.

    None of this should be taken to mean that I believe "universal humanism" or any other "ism" is the answer to civilization's discontents. We in the West have our share of troubles, just of a different shape.

  119. @jacques sheete

    The jihadis have a large body of scripture and tradition on their side.
     
    Like I keep saying, I doubt if that makes much of a difference. People are gonna do what they want no matter what's written.

    Our own "constitution" and how effectively it limits the ruling classes is a prime example of the concept.

    JS – honestly – you have my deep respect for trying to keep it real on this thread and putting people’s feet to the fire. I thought over multiple times whether I should throw my weight in because of how much nonsense and ignorance is being thrown around on this thread. I have three boys; you know that feeling when you walk into a room and see it as such a mess that you don’t know where exactly to begin…so you walk right back out? Then you know how I was feeling.

    But it was grinding on me seeing you try to dispel all the nonsense on your own – so I thought I’d ride shotgun. There is way too much crap to shovel out, but hey maybe we can move enough aside for standing room only.

    Peace – and may God preserve you and your family with honor in this world and the next.

  120. @MEexpert

    I would call it inherently violent, militant, and expansionist, though. Mohammed is their model, the way Christ is the model for Christians. You can take anything and commit violence in that thing’s name, but with Islam, it’s the converse; you can’t take the militancy out.

     

    Boy are you ignorant. Which history book are you reading? Stop reading Pat Geller or Robert Spencer. The word Islam itself means peace. Don't read the neocon propaganda.

    Mohammed lived the life of a bandit, executed prisoners, took and kept slaves, had many wives (way more than four), and had sex with children. The contrast with Christ could not be more stark.
     
    And you know it how? It is easy to regurgitate the filth the neocons are putting out against Islam by insulting the Prophet, the most peaceful person. Here is what the real scholars of religion have said about him in the past. Do you think they would have said this if what you wrote were true?

    Ah, the personality of Muhammad! (P.B.U.H), it is most difficult to get into the truth of it. To quote Professor Ramakrishna Rao, in one of the best articles from a non-Muslim, "One can only catch a glimpse of it. What a dramatic succession of picturesque scenes. There is Muhammad, the prophet. There is Muhammad the General; Muhammad the King; Muhammad the Warrior; Muhammad the businessman; Muhammad the preacher; Muhammad the philosopher; Muhammad the statesman; Muhammad the Orator; Muhammad the reformer; Muhammad the refuge of orphans; Muhammad the Protector of Slaves; Muhammad the emancipator of women; Muhammad the Law-giver; Muhammad the Judge; Muhammad the Saint."

    The literature is full of glowing tributes to his personality. French historian, Lamaratine writes, "Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?" (Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.)

    Another western author (Bosworth Smith) continues, "He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports." (Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM, London, 1874, p. 92.)
    Michael Hart puts him at the top of his 100 most influential persons in history. His reasons, "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." (Michael H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, p. 33.)

    "If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls. . . his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words. (Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.)

    Historian Edward Gibbon writes: "It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran. . . The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. 'I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God' is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honours of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion."
    Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay, HISTORY OF THE SARACEN EMPIRE, London, 1870, p. 54.

    "It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher."
    Annie Besant, THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD, Madras,1932, p. 4.

    “The word Islam itself means peace.”

    No, it means submission, both submission to God (for Muslims) and submission to Islam for everyone else.

    • Replies: @MEexpert
    The root word of "Islam" is salaam which means peace. Generally, Arabic words have multiple meanings. When you submit yourself to the will of Allah (GOD), you are at peace.

    .........and submission to Islam for everyone else.
     
    What are you implying?
  121. @Talha
    Hey attila,

    JS is right; Somalia is better without a central government - he has metrics on his side:
    “Such was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to its citizens than good. The government’s collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper investigates the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.”
    http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

    Our system doesn't work for them, their system doesn't work for us. We should all be mature enough to recognize this.

    Thousands of Somalis are going back now that things have gotten better - we should encourage this and avoid destabilizing the country:
    "Going back: Somalia’'s diaspora return home - Thousands of Somalis have left comfortable, secure lives in the West to return to Somalia."
    http://www.trtworld.com/mea/going-back-somalias-diaspora-return-home-51506

    Peace.

    One could argue that Somalis are better suited to tribalism or clannishness rather than anarchy. If Somaliland, Puntland and Somalia each attained sovereignty that will not guarantee peace but it will make a lot more sense to those directly involved.

    “Our system doesn’t work for them, their system doesn’t work for us. We should all be mature enough to recognize this.”

    Amen to that.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey pelagic,

    'Anarchy' was the term the researcher used, not me. In the absence of a centralized government, most Westerners assume 'anarchy'. People who know better are quite aware that governance resolves back to the tribes as it did for centuries before the idea of the nation-state was introduced.

    I have a friend; a White convert who married a Somali woman. We were talking about a lot of these issues. People here think it is a given that an 18 year old cheerleader should have the same voice as a 65 year old Vietnam veteran. My friend and I talked about how completely insipid it is to introduce a system into a tribal society where the political voice/vote of an 18 year old woman counts the same as a 65 year old tribal elder. Not only is it insane, it is asking them to take all that makes them uniquely Somali, take a shotgun to its mouth and blow out its brains.

    Peace.
  122. Islam is no different to any religion. How could it be – by definition? Most Western religions are full of neo-con members who aren’t able to be reasoned with. Their words end all debate – stone dead.
    Why would Islam be any more reasonable? It would have to no longer be a religion – it couldn’t back an Inter-Faith movement (which it does on University campuses).
    Its evangelical prosecution of ‘peace’ will grind to a halt and jihad will disappear for lack of fertile soil. Hijabs would be a sign of irreligion. In other words the whole ball of wax will unravel. Isn’t this what we see in the Western religions?

  123. Boy are you ignorant. Which history book are you reading? Stop reading Pat Geller or Robert Spencer. The word Islam itself means peace. Don’t read the neocon propaganda.

    Help me out:

    Did Mohammed, or did he not, engage in raids for plunder?
    Did he, or did he not, execute prisoners?
    Did he, or did he not, have people put to death for things that no modern civilization has people put to death for, anymore?
    Did he, or did he not, own slaves?
    Did he, or did he not, lay down with children?

    I’m just talking the Koran here, btw.

    https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

    Yeah, nobody cares about Mohammed the businessman, Mohammed the preacher, etc. I’m sure Muslims think he’s great. It’s the bit about Mohammed the warrior, the general, the bandit, the plunderer, the enslaver, the exterminator, the child molester, the executioner that gives us pause.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Svigor,

    I'll play...


    Did Mohammed, or did he not, engage in raids for plunder?
     
    Correct - razzia raiding was the predominate mode of warfare among Arab tribes of the Hejaz:
    The excellent book ‘Armies of Muslim Conquest’ by Prof. David Nicolle has the very first sentence under the chapter called “The Prophet’s First Warriors” as:
    “Arabian warfare was based on different principles from that of their larger neighbors, razzia raiding being the most common tactic.”

    Closest practice Western militaries have fielded is that of privateering:
    “European governments regularly issued documents known as Letters of Marque and Reprisal to legitimize privately outfitted men-of-war. In a tradition dating back to the Middle Ages, under highly regulated conditions, these documents authorized private parties to attack enemy vessels. Without the documentation, these same activities were considered acts of piracy and subject to prosecution. If a privateer captured an enemy ship (known as a prize), an admiralty prize court had to approve the seizure. Then, the proceeds from the sale of the prize and its cargo were shared among the owners and crew of the privateer according to a pre-arranged contract.…A Privateer Commission was issued to vessels, called privateers or cruisers, whose primary objective was to disrupt enemy shipping. The ideal target was an unarmed, or lightly armed, commercial ship.”
    https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html

    If the charge is that he lived fat off the money - nonsense - all the sources show he lived a spartan life, barely ever eating meat and dying in debt to someone for a sack of wheat - even while he had the entire Arabian peninsula under his control.


    Did he, or did he not, execute prisoners?
     
    Correct - or ransomed them, or traded them in prisoner swaps, or forgave them, depending on circumstance. Your assumption is that we must necessarily execute prisoners in violation of current war conventions (of which Muslim nations are a party) - please cite evidence from our scholars (not your interpretation of our texts) saying so.

    Did he, or did he not, have people put to death for things that no modern civilization has people put to death for, anymore?
     
    Correct - the answer as to why is in the question itself if you look hard enough.

    Did he, or did he not, own slaves?
     
    Correct - and sometimes emancipated them. Your assumption is that we must necessarily have slavery in our societies - please cite evidence from our scholars (not your interpretation of our texts) saying so.

    Did he, or did he not, lay down with children?
     
    Incorrect - the Lady Aisha (ra) - a jurist of the highest rank from the first generation - by her own admission had reached biological adulthood at nine (when she consumated marriage), which is a reflection of the realities of early menstruation of the women of her time and locality:
    “When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman.” – reported in Tirmidhi

    This is not unknown about menarche - onset of menstruation:
    “… it can happen as early as age 9 or as late as 15…”
    http://www.webmd.com/children/tc/menarche-topic-overview

    Earlier is possible, but quite abnormal:
    "We conclude that signs of puberty in 6- to 8-year-old girls should not be considered normal or benign."
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/1/47

    Biological adulthood (with the onset of puberty) is the only universal benchmark one can use to determine when a human becomes an adult (everything else is subject to arbitrary cultural or historic norms):
    “Biologically, an adult is a human being or other organism that has reached sexual maturity.”
    Adolescence: Psychology, Human development

    Really, the only societies where this even applies are parts of the Sahel region or rural parts of the Arabian peninsula. Most Muslim societies marry women in the upper teens (at the earliest) - 15 and after.

    And frankly, we don't really care if others think they can arbitrarily define adulthood at a given age; 15, 18, 21 - and then judge all of humanity going backwards. Especially when their own ancestors or coreligionists didn't real have a problem with it (or even younger ages):
    "Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine. Agnes's age, then, was not unusual, especially as it was customary for young engaged couples in Constantinople to be brought up together in the house of the socially superior partner.[[4]]"
    http://www.roman-emperors.org/aggiefran.htm

    "If two people were married and had sex, no matter what their age, no crime was committed because a woman was her husband’s property."
    Sex and Society, Volume 1: Age of Consent

    Even the majority of the states in the union (until the advent of the 20th century) had ages of consent clocking at 10 years old, the rest had 12 - Delware said OK to 7:
    http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/website-reviews/230?section=primarysources&source=24

    I will give you credit for consistency though if you are willing to call out all previous Christian, European and American societies for centuries before the rules were changed as pedophiles, child-molesters or at least enablers. Of course, you may have to face them on the Day of Judgement for calumny - but it's your afterlife, not mine.

    Peace.

  124. hey talha, the USA is better off without Somalis.

    First, am I correct in assuming you are a Muslim? Your continual use of the word “peace” makes me think you are employing taqiyya.

    So, if you are Muslim, you are a Christian heretic who follows a pedophile.

    Next, are you Asian/black (most Muslims are)? I am a Caucasian Christian
    woman and you are inferior to me.

    If you are Asian/black you, (along with Somalis) cannot be a part of the Caucasian/
    European Christian Europagan West. You and the places whence you come are low
    IQ/evolutionary catastrophes.

    I am having a good laugh because jtgw, Wizard of OZ, jacques sheete will not answer
    my comments. How brave of you to come to their defense.

    So, first tell me if you are Asian/black/Muslim and then I can continue to prove you
    wrong.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey attila,

    the USA is better off without Somalis
     
    Cool - pssst, talking to the wrong guy, I didn't invite them.

    you are a Muslim?
     
    You got me!

    employing taqiyya
     
    LOL! Lady, you have no idea who you are talking to. Any of the regular UNZ people can vouch for my consistency. Or I may be saying 'peace' because I actually mean it.

    you are a Christian heretic
     
    You mean the old school theory floated by John of Damascus? The 'Heresy of the Ishmaelites'?
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    It's a rational theory; it was copied over from Christianity - that explains the similarities. Another rational theory for the similarities is that it was sent from the same Divine source in order to fix what the Christians and others made mistakes on; which is what it claims. Both seem quite rational conclusions to me.


    who follows a pedophile
     
    Meh - see my reply to Svigor.

    are you Asian/black
     
    From Pakistan originally, yes.

    I am a Caucasian Christian woman
     
    I am married to a Caucasian female convert of Swedish stock - are you trying to impress me? Technically, I have three spots open, but my teachers have said an emphatic no to polygamy for any of their students.

    you are inferior to me
     
    Correct - in a bikini contest, my scores would be well in the negative double digits. But, by all means preach your version of racially-superior Christianity and then wonder why you are shedding numbers and why we are buying out empty churches.

    you cannot be a part of the Caucasian/European Christian Europagan West
     
    OK - when the government officially sends me a notice that revokes my right to stay, I promise I won't fight. What about my kids, they are White (well 50%) - they definitely look White.

    You and the places whence you come are low IQ/evolutionary catastrophes
     
    Yet somehow they allowed me to sneak into the GATE program in my youth in California - suckerzzz! And somehow all the High IQ nations haven't got the memo that they better get their population birth rates out of free fall - that seems cogently fit in an evolutionary sense - I think?

    their defense
     
    They don't need me to defend them; I've interacted with them before, they are intelligent men. Perhaps they are simply staying silent on a topic of which they don't have a particular expertise - that, in and of itself, connotes intelligence and self-control.

    tell me if you are Asian/black/Muslim
     
    Here you go; I am a Muslim of Pakistani origin who follows the Sunni Hanafi school of jurisprudence and the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi school of spiritual purification and I have been studying at the feet of scholars from both these oceans for over a decade - enough info?

    I can continue to prove you wrong
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YVTksxZMOA

    Peace.

  125. @Talha
    Hey AF,

    Do you really think that thousands of jihadis would have flocked to Syria without the lure of the Caliphate?
     
    Of course not. The better questions are:
    1) Why haven't millions of jihadis flocked to Syria?
    2) Why have all the top ulema of the world denounced it? Scroll to bottom to see list of signatories:
    http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf
    3) Why should we take the interpretation of gun-toting twenty year-olds seriously over the writings and pronouncements of men who have spent 40/50 years of their lives dedicated to the study of religion?
    4) Why do the lion's share of them have the most basic knowledge of Islam - accordign to their own leaked documents?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-documents-leak-recruits-islam-sharia-religion-faith-syria-iraq-a7193086.html

    Name me one scholar of any weight or institution (like Azhar, Qarawain, Sarhanpur, etc.) in the Muslim world that supports Daesh. If it is the case that their interpretation is sound, there should be plenty of scholars who support them that can easily be found from the Maghreb to the Mashriq.

    Establishment of the Caliphate is an obligation of this religion upon the whole Ummah - anyone who studies our tradition knows this to be the case. We are not ashamed of this; it is both a goal and trust and gift from God...only if we are worthy and deserving - which we are (on the whole) proving that we are miserably incapable of the responsibility as yet.

    The assumption that Daesh represents a Caliphate or even the correct methodology to establish one is a joke - also according to anyone who studies our tradition.

    This is Shaykh Hamza Maqbul - a scholar of both the Hanafi and Maliki schools of law (a very rare specialization) making things clear and giving some tough love and sound advice to some young Muslims:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knQTe8qxJmg

    Peace.

    The assumption that Daesh represents a Caliphate or even the correct methodology to establish one is a joke – also according to anyone who studies our tradition.

    I did not “assume” it, Baghdadi claimed it, and thousands followed. Nor did I claim that his followers were scholars, rather “the violent portion of its population”. All populations have a portion of such.

    I did say, and believe, that the example of the prophet’s blending of government and religion give Islam and the Ummah problems that other contemporary religions do not have. The expectation of the Mahdi as a political figure does also.

    If the Roman Catholic Church still believed they had a claim to secular power I would see a problem there also.

    None of this should be taken to mean that I believe “universal humanism” or any other “ism” is the answer to civilization’s discontents. We in the West have our share of troubles, just of a different shape.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey AF,

    All populations have a portion of such.
     
    Damn right.

    blending of government and religion
     
    Religion has a say in how human beings behave and interact - why shouldn't it have a say in how their society is organized? To us, the assumption to the contrary is preposterous.

    If the Roman Catholic Church still believed they had a claim to secular power I would see a problem there also.
     
    Ah - the days when Popes commanded armies! Make sure their salaries are paid though - let me tell ya!:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(1527)

    We in the West have our share of troubles, just of a different shape.
     
    Damn right.

    Peace.

    , @Greasy William

    I did not “assume” it, Baghdadi claimed it, and thousands followed.
     
    Baghdadi is a moron and most ISIS members aren't very religious. They are just secular Islamic psychopaths who have decided to use religion as an excuse to rape, rob, torture and murder.

    Al Qaeda are bad dudes, but they are at least real Muslims. If you want to call Islam violent use Al Qaeda as an example, not ISIS. ISIS has alienated pretty much the entire Islamic world.
    , @Talha

    I did not “assume” it, Baghdadi claimed it, and thousands followed.
     
    This actually is a massive problem in our Ummah; this is a legitimate point. We are having a crisis among the Muslims. People are not listening to the qualified scholarship and they are following either their own opinions or the ignorant/unqualified (aka keyboard Muftis). Or janitors-turned-mufti:
    “By the time Benyettou was 22, Filiu writes, he was spending his time perusing jihadi websites and dressing in garb that primarily only Muslim preachers wore. When the mosque he belonged to expelled him, he joined another; it was there, The Washington Post says, that he worked as a janitor and met Cherif Kouachi.”
    “Benyettou operated in the margins of the religious community, defying the older imams and scorning their speeches,” Filiu writes. Benyettou, whom followers called Abu Abdallah, Filiu adds, “built up his own brand of Salafi-esque preaching, far from any established guidance, with a strong emphasis on jihad.”
    http://www.newsweek.com/meet-farid-benyettou-man-who-trained-paris-attack-suspect-cherif-kouachi-298028

    This is an acknowledged problem and we absolutely need to address this among our people - that is for sure.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77QODDURVMg

    “Verily, God does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but rather he takes away knowledge with the death of the scholars until he leaves no scholar behind and the people turn to the ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to give religious judgments without knowledge, thus they are led astray and lead others astray.” - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.
  126. @iffen
    They had to be darkskinned tropical people to work long hours

    This is factually incorrect and is disproved by the millions of white share-croppers who worked, survived and reproduced in the American south up until WWII.

    Indeed and even in the case of sugar cane production high wage Australia did it with white labour before mechanisation and after the “immigration” (blackbirding?) of islanders ceased. Perhaps the European populations weren’t at the Malthusian point at which actual slaves weren’t needed in Jamaica in the 18th century?

    Perhaps, subsequently, the rising prosperity of a rising population meant that demand for sugar raised its price to a point where free white cane cutters could be afforded. Same maybe for cotton?

    Oh what a tangle of extra verbiage my nitpicking gets me into.

  127. @MEexpert
    Right. I was answering your question. I am not advocating non-response. These countries sat on their "hands" while Israel expelled millions of Palestinians (Christian Palestinians included) from their land, or ISIS slaughtered anyone having different beliefs (except Jews of course), like Shias, Christians, and Kurds, etc. Jews were spared because Israel supports ISIS.

    But you haven’t answered my question as to what policy you would advocate in my hypothetical Egyptian Coptic genocide case.

  128. @MEexpert
    I guess that is why he allowed a delegation of Christian mourners to the holy city of Karbala and Najaf. Stop listening to neocon propaganda. Do some research on your own before talking this nonsense.

    ME, your comment is rich with irony.

  129. @jacques sheete

    The jihadis have a large body of scripture and tradition on their side.
     
    Like I keep saying, I doubt if that makes much of a difference. People are gonna do what they want no matter what's written.

    Our own "constitution" and how effectively it limits the ruling classes is a prime example of the concept.

    There’s a subtle difference here, Jacques. The Constitution says do X but the backsliders and grifters went ahead and did Y.

    The Koran, however, says do X and the jihadis just went ahead and did X.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Ace,

    Qur'an says a lot of things so do hadith. The jihadis are unqualified to interpret it; that you or they think they are is completely irrelevant because you are also unqualified to judge who is qualified.

    Which is why they are hunting down and eliminating those that are qualified:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvNupoSw_u8

    Maybe the Qur'an actually says to eliminate those who understand it best - hmmmm?

    Or maybe these guys really are just ignorant gun-toting 20 year olds.

    Peace.
  130. @much of what I hear him saying… is arrant nonsense.

    Or is just Taqiyya (precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of ‘persecution’)?

  131. Islam does not believe in the separation of church and state. The state in the US and most of the world has it’s own secular religion, and if you concede and live with your private religion superimposed on it, you will not satisfied unless your religion is only the trappings of a tribe, without serious ethics that have social consequences. Christianity used to be imbued in your whole life, ethics, morals, and whatever consequences it might have politically, but now days, the cowardly Christians in the US are content to be immersed in a sea of hostile values in the public square. Homosexuality, abortion, sexuality of all stripes, the primacy of socialism as the center of morality, – And not offending people and being “nice” is a lever used to beat down any dissonant voices from
    the religious teachings of the past.
    This is why Putin, kneeling in the snow praying with Kirill, seeming to stand for a state
    that is not hostile to Christianity, gets traction with so many in the US.
    I think cantonization is the answer. Worked in Switzerland. County sized states which
    allow the religion of choice to prevail. If you want to live in a state with a secular religion, that would be a choice for you. find a canton to your liking. If you are a traditional Catholic, and want to be immersed in that, go for it. If you are Muslim, find a canton to your liking. The trick is to find some non intrusive way to form a federation for the sake of common trade and maybe some short term common effort, and the confederation is strictly voluntary, leave any time you want. And you can be kicked out for bad behavior. The founders of the US probably envisioned something like that.
    I would go for a weaker union and in light of the monster which it has become, some kind of guarantee that you can secede without being murdered.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey headrick,

    Bro - I like your style - some very good, out-of-the-box thinking. Along the lines of good neighbors make good fences. If the whole house of cards comes crashing down, we will need thinkers like this to raise up a society that avoids the pitfalls of the last one.

    Peace - much respect.
  132. @pelagic
    "The word Islam itself means peace."

    No, it means submission, both submission to God (for Muslims) and submission to Islam for everyone else.

    The root word of “Islam” is salaam which means peace. Generally, Arabic words have multiple meanings. When you submit yourself to the will of Allah (GOD), you are at peace.

    ………and submission to Islam for everyone else.

    What are you implying?

  133. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Kerry said Israel can’t be both JEWISH and democratic.

    Kerry seems to think democracy is about diversity.

    But homogeneity of ethnos is the best basis for democracy.

    After all, a people of shared race and culture are more likely to focus on issues in elections.

    In contrast, diverse peoples tend to stick with their own kind.

    The reason why democracy worked best in homogeneous nations in Europe is obvious.

    Democracy would have been impossible in something like the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

    The reason why democracy is so difficult to maintain in Iraq, Syria, and Libya is due to diversity. If political freedom is allowed, various clans and sects wanna go their own ways or dominate others, and this leads to distrust.

    So, if Israel wants to remain a democracy, it is best to keep the nation as Jewish as possible.

    Kerry’s argument would have made more sense if he had mentioned West Bank than Israel. There, Palestinians are the majority, so you can’t have democracy + Jewish control in that region. Jewish control has to be imperialist.

    But it seems like he chickened out or something.

    As for one-state solution, that will add too many Palestinians to the Israeli citizen roster, and that level of diversity will make democracy poisonous in Israel.

  134. @pelagic
    One could argue that Somalis are better suited to tribalism or clannishness rather than anarchy. If Somaliland, Puntland and Somalia each attained sovereignty that will not guarantee peace but it will make a lot more sense to those directly involved.

    "Our system doesn’t work for them, their system doesn’t work for us. We should all be mature enough to recognize this."

    Amen to that.

    Hey pelagic,

    ‘Anarchy’ was the term the researcher used, not me. In the absence of a centralized government, most Westerners assume ‘anarchy’. People who know better are quite aware that governance resolves back to the tribes as it did for centuries before the idea of the nation-state was introduced.

    I have a friend; a White convert who married a Somali woman. We were talking about a lot of these issues. People here think it is a given that an 18 year old cheerleader should have the same voice as a 65 year old Vietnam veteran. My friend and I talked about how completely insipid it is to introduce a system into a tribal society where the political voice/vote of an 18 year old woman counts the same as a 65 year old tribal elder. Not only is it insane, it is asking them to take all that makes them uniquely Somali, take a shotgun to its mouth and blow out its brains.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @pelagic
    "Not only is it insane…"

    Agreed. As a comparison, would you say that introducing a system such as Islam (because it is a system as you know, and not merely a religion) to Western societies is equally insane? And vice versa?
  135. @Ace
    There's a subtle difference here, Jacques. The Constitution says do X but the backsliders and grifters went ahead and did Y.

    The Koran, however, says do X and the jihadis just went ahead and did X.

    Hey Ace,

    Qur’an says a lot of things so do hadith. The jihadis are unqualified to interpret it; that you or they think they are is completely irrelevant because you are also unqualified to judge who is qualified.

    Which is why they are hunting down and eliminating those that are qualified:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvNupoSw_u8

    Maybe the Qur’an actually says to eliminate those who understand it best – hmmmm?

    Or maybe these guys really are just ignorant gun-toting 20 year olds.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Ace
    Here are some authoritative Islamic texts, Talha, at least I think the Koran and Bukhari are authoritative:

    K 9.123: "Fight the unbelievers around you and let them find harshness in you".

    K 4:84: "Fight in Allah's Cause. Incite the believers to fight with you."

    K 2:216: "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), even if you dislike it."

    K 47:4: "Smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding them."

    K 8.12: "Smite infidels on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes."

    K 48:28-29: "It is He that has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith, so that he may exalt it above all religions. Sufficient is God as a witness. Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

    K 8:38-39: "Tell the unbelievers that if they mend their ways their past shall be forgiven; but if they persist in sin, let them reflect upon the fate of bygone nations. Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme."

    Bukhari:V4B52N220: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”
     

    Now maybe I just sleep the sleep of the unqualified but that seems like some eminently clear, strong medicine from the Great Arab Father of Fathers to the effect that infidels are scum and deserve to die.

    Muslim behavior around the world certainly is consistent with that view and the voices of more moderate Muslims are muted to say the least. Those one hears about occasionally usually come with accompanying tales of homicidal retaliation that are wildly popular. (I added that bit about being wildly popular. Completely unjustified, I know.)

    Suliman Bashear, that professor at the University of Nablus who opined to his class that Islam didn't emerge "fully formed from the mouth of the Prophet" became airborne for a short while thanks to his students who weren't ignorant 20-y-o jihadis, thank you very munch. I'm sure they were severely punished. (Btw, it's not the 20-year-olds who are calling the shots in Libya, Iraq, and Syria but their superiors, of course, so let's not say the killings they carry out are the result of religious interpretations indulged in by children. The kiddies do what they're told to do.)

    Shahbaz Bhatti and Salmaan Taseer (both deceased per second link) and Prof. Bashear seem(ed) like educated, informed, broadminded men with a good handle on some of the problems of Islamic doctrine (or perhaps simply problems caused by Islamic doctrine) but I suppose you would say they're unqualified to comment on or criticize the Koran too.

    I don't know what exactly those qualified-but-deceased imams in your YouTube video link said that set off the nutcases. Their exact teachings that got them killed would be instructive.

    I don't categorically reject the notion that there are intelligent Koranic scholars who are voices of moderation and try to tamp down the fires of radicalism. I do, however, reject your notion that only "qualified" persons can interpret the Koran, hadiths, and whatever. The great Shia imam a-Sistani in Iraq publishes on his own website that infidels are najis, i.e., down there on the level of dogs, pigs, excrement, and dead bodies. For all I know that's pure gold so far as what the Koran, etc., say about us filthy dog infidels but I, in the darkness of my unqualified soul, say that's garbage, regardless. Vicious, in point of fact. As are the opening quotes I provided. Their meaning is clear.

    You don't have to go to imam school to see that.

    Peace.

  136. @another fred

    The assumption that Daesh represents a Caliphate or even the correct methodology to establish one is a joke – also according to anyone who studies our tradition.
     
    I did not "assume" it, Baghdadi claimed it, and thousands followed. Nor did I claim that his followers were scholars, rather "the violent portion of its population". All populations have a portion of such.

    I did say, and believe, that the example of the prophet's blending of government and religion give Islam and the Ummah problems that other contemporary religions do not have. The expectation of the Mahdi as a political figure does also.

    If the Roman Catholic Church still believed they had a claim to secular power I would see a problem there also.

    None of this should be taken to mean that I believe "universal humanism" or any other "ism" is the answer to civilization's discontents. We in the West have our share of troubles, just of a different shape.

    Hey AF,

    All populations have a portion of such.

    Damn right.

    blending of government and religion

    Religion has a say in how human beings behave and interact – why shouldn’t it have a say in how their society is organized? To us, the assumption to the contrary is preposterous.

    If the Roman Catholic Church still believed they had a claim to secular power I would see a problem there also.

    Ah – the days when Popes commanded armies! Make sure their salaries are paid though – let me tell ya!:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(1527)

    We in the West have our share of troubles, just of a different shape.

    Damn right.

    Peace.

  137. […] The Unz Review: Real Islam and Democracy By PAUL GOTTFRIED […]

  138. @another fred

    The assumption that Daesh represents a Caliphate or even the correct methodology to establish one is a joke – also according to anyone who studies our tradition.
     
    I did not "assume" it, Baghdadi claimed it, and thousands followed. Nor did I claim that his followers were scholars, rather "the violent portion of its population". All populations have a portion of such.

    I did say, and believe, that the example of the prophet's blending of government and religion give Islam and the Ummah problems that other contemporary religions do not have. The expectation of the Mahdi as a political figure does also.

    If the Roman Catholic Church still believed they had a claim to secular power I would see a problem there also.

    None of this should be taken to mean that I believe "universal humanism" or any other "ism" is the answer to civilization's discontents. We in the West have our share of troubles, just of a different shape.

    I did not “assume” it, Baghdadi claimed it, and thousands followed.

    Baghdadi is a moron and most ISIS members aren’t very religious. They are just secular Islamic psychopaths who have decided to use religion as an excuse to rape, rob, torture and murder.

    Al Qaeda are bad dudes, but they are at least real Muslims. If you want to call Islam violent use Al Qaeda as an example, not ISIS. ISIS has alienated pretty much the entire Islamic world.

    • Replies: @Talha
    C'mon Greasy,

    You know al-Qaeda are Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. They also have very little traction with any scholar of note or any of our institutions. But I will say, they do have a bigger appeal because they actually seem to give a hoot about not spilling Muslim blood arbitrarily. I do have to give them that - they may be extremists, but at least they aren't at the Khawarij end of the spectrum.

    Peace.
  139. @Svigor

    Boy are you ignorant. Which history book are you reading? Stop reading Pat Geller or Robert Spencer. The word Islam itself means peace. Don’t read the neocon propaganda.
     
    Help me out:

    Did Mohammed, or did he not, engage in raids for plunder?
    Did he, or did he not, execute prisoners?
    Did he, or did he not, have people put to death for things that no modern civilization has people put to death for, anymore?
    Did he, or did he not, own slaves?
    Did he, or did he not, lay down with children?

    I'm just talking the Koran here, btw.

    https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

    Yeah, nobody cares about Mohammed the businessman, Mohammed the preacher, etc. I'm sure Muslims think he's great. It's the bit about Mohammed the warrior, the general, the bandit, the plunderer, the enslaver, the exterminator, the child molester, the executioner that gives us pause.

    Hey Svigor,

    I’ll play…

    Did Mohammed, or did he not, engage in raids for plunder?

    Correct – razzia raiding was the predominate mode of warfare among Arab tribes of the Hejaz:
    The excellent book ‘Armies of Muslim Conquest’ by Prof. David Nicolle has the very first sentence under the chapter called “The Prophet’s First Warriors” as:
    “Arabian warfare was based on different principles from that of their larger neighbors, razzia raiding being the most common tactic.”

    Closest practice Western militaries have fielded is that of privateering:
    “European governments regularly issued documents known as Letters of Marque and Reprisal to legitimize privately outfitted men-of-war. In a tradition dating back to the Middle Ages, under highly regulated conditions, these documents authorized private parties to attack enemy vessels. Without the documentation, these same activities were considered acts of piracy and subject to prosecution. If a privateer captured an enemy ship (known as a prize), an admiralty prize court had to approve the seizure. Then, the proceeds from the sale of the prize and its cargo were shared among the owners and crew of the privateer according to a pre-arranged contract.…A Privateer Commission was issued to vessels, called privateers or cruisers, whose primary objective was to disrupt enemy shipping. The ideal target was an unarmed, or lightly armed, commercial ship.”
    https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html

    If the charge is that he lived fat off the money – nonsense – all the sources show he lived a spartan life, barely ever eating meat and dying in debt to someone for a sack of wheat – even while he had the entire Arabian peninsula under his control.

    Did he, or did he not, execute prisoners?

    Correct – or ransomed them, or traded them in prisoner swaps, or forgave them, depending on circumstance. Your assumption is that we must necessarily execute prisoners in violation of current war conventions (of which Muslim nations are a party) – please cite evidence from our scholars (not your interpretation of our texts) saying so.

    Did he, or did he not, have people put to death for things that no modern civilization has people put to death for, anymore?

    Correct – the answer as to why is in the question itself if you look hard enough.

    Did he, or did he not, own slaves?

    Correct – and sometimes emancipated them. Your assumption is that we must necessarily have slavery in our societies – please cite evidence from our scholars (not your interpretation of our texts) saying so.

    Did he, or did he not, lay down with children?

    Incorrect – the Lady Aisha (ra) – a jurist of the highest rank from the first generation – by her own admission had reached biological adulthood at nine (when she consumated marriage), which is a reflection of the realities of early menstruation of the women of her time and locality:
    “When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman.” – reported in Tirmidhi

    This is not unknown about menarche – onset of menstruation:
    “… it can happen as early as age 9 or as late as 15…”
    http://www.webmd.com/children/tc/menarche-topic-overview

    Earlier is possible, but quite abnormal:
    “We conclude that signs of puberty in 6- to 8-year-old girls should not be considered normal or benign.”
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/1/47

    Biological adulthood (with the onset of puberty) is the only universal benchmark one can use to determine when a human becomes an adult (everything else is subject to arbitrary cultural or historic norms):
    “Biologically, an adult is a human being or other organism that has reached sexual maturity.”
    Adolescence: Psychology, Human development

    Really, the only societies where this even applies are parts of the Sahel region or rural parts of the Arabian peninsula. Most Muslim societies marry women in the upper teens (at the earliest) – 15 and after.

    And frankly, we don’t really care if others think they can arbitrarily define adulthood at a given age; 15, 18, 21 – and then judge all of humanity going backwards. Especially when their own ancestors or coreligionists didn’t real have a problem with it (or even younger ages):
    “Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel’s niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine. Agnes’s age, then, was not unusual, especially as it was customary for young engaged couples in Constantinople to be brought up together in the house of the socially superior partner.[[4]]”
    http://www.roman-emperors.org/aggiefran.htm

    “If two people were married and had sex, no matter what their age, no crime was committed because a woman was her husband’s property.”
    Sex and Society, Volume 1: Age of Consent

    Even the majority of the states in the union (until the advent of the 20th century) had ages of consent clocking at 10 years old, the rest had 12 – Delware said OK to 7:
    http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/website-reviews/230?section=primarysources&source=24

    I will give you credit for consistency though if you are willing to call out all previous Christian, European and American societies for centuries before the rules were changed as pedophiles, child-molesters or at least enablers. Of course, you may have to face them on the Day of Judgement for calumny – but it’s your afterlife, not mine.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @raphee
    Talha, although I would disagree with some of your points, but do not consider it important to do so, since the questions were of a frivolous nature, and not asked, IMO, with the honest nature of enquiry. Your answers will have to do for now for the gentleman.

    However, one thing I would like to give my opinion on is the age of Aisha at marriage. There is considerable debate within the Islamic scholars on this point, and I don't believe the case is as open and shut as you say. The main issue is that no one knows with hundred per cent surety the year of her birth. The first person who suggested her age could've been 9 was Hasan Basri. however many scholars refute his evidence on the grounds that when he said this he was already in old age and his mental faculties were failing him. unfortunately his opinion was picked up eagerly by the anti Muslim brigade.

    Many other scholars debate his calculation. The work I've seen suggests Aisha was likely to be between 18 and 20. The age of 15 has also been mentioned in some calculations. This vagueness is a result of various extrapolations done by scholars as to her likely age when correlated with important Islamic events, or even personal events of Aisha's life. I'd suggest you do a deeper reading. Unfortunately I can't pass the links or sources since they are not at hand.
  140. @jacques sheete

    Interesting that quixotic (“Quixote like”) can be ambiguous. You use it in the sense of unrealistically optimistic but when quixotic tendencies lead to high minded foreign adventures I would say it is time for Sancho Panza to counsel his master in common sense.
     
    You are correct on all counts.

    We are destined to get on so well in 2017 :-)

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    PS Could you do some friendly mentoring of some of my family members before the sunset clause on NY resolutions does the usual...
  141. @Wizard of Oz
    We are destined to get on so well in 2017 :-)

    PS Could you do some friendly mentoring of some of my family members before the sunset clause on NY resolutions does the usual…

  142. @jacques sheete

    You would support that non response if the new Egyptian government announced that Hitler was too shy and too easygoing and that Mohammed X (the new Egyptian president) was going to show the world how an efficient and complete genocide should be carried out starting with all 40 million Copts?
     
    If he's an American, he very well could support a non response. In fact, he may even support a genocide or two with both barrels. Never mind Hitler, look how Lenin and Stalin's murderous antics were pretty much ignored.

    Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 7-10 million Ukraninas in the years 1932-3 yet nothing was done to him. In fact, FDR decided to recognize the USSR in 1933, then went on to support his murderous rampage against Hitler. Note also that 1933 was the year Hitler was just coming into power.

    I could also mention the numerous colonial atrocities of the various European empires and how they got overlooked too.

    The US record with respect to genocides isn't so good....

    You suggest a theory of activity in the American hive which has it sending out in spring a swarm of pronatalist missionaries and a few years on a winter swarm of arms salesmen to the genocidally inclined dictators. I trust you have an anticipatory change.org petition drafted for the latest generation of those who value that great constitutional right to petition the Congress.

  143. @Greasy William

    I did not “assume” it, Baghdadi claimed it, and thousands followed.
     
    Baghdadi is a moron and most ISIS members aren't very religious. They are just secular Islamic psychopaths who have decided to use religion as an excuse to rape, rob, torture and murder.

    Al Qaeda are bad dudes, but they are at least real Muslims. If you want to call Islam violent use Al Qaeda as an example, not ISIS. ISIS has alienated pretty much the entire Islamic world.

    C’mon Greasy,

    You know al-Qaeda are Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. They also have very little traction with any scholar of note or any of our institutions. But I will say, they do have a bigger appeal because they actually seem to give a hoot about not spilling Muslim blood arbitrarily. I do have to give them that – they may be extremists, but at least they aren’t at the Khawarij end of the spectrum.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Greasy William

    You know al-Qaeda are Salafi/Wahhabi extremists.
     
    al Qaeda are extremists, but nobody would say that they aren't practicing a form of Islam, unless that is what you are saying right now. A very bad, very extreme form of Islam that almost all muslims and Islamic scholars reject, but it a version of Islam none the less. Can you imagine a "secular" Al Qaeda member? Of course not. In contrast, ISIS's supporters and foot soldiers are virtually all secular.

    ISIS is something new. They are just killers who use Islam as a justification, but most ISIS guys (and girls) aren't very religious. They are just psychopaths who want to kill so they use Islam as a justification.

    You can find Muslims who sympathize with Al Qaeda, but 1.6 billion Muslims hate ISIS virtually unanimously.

    The world has never seen anything like ISIS before.
    , @MEexpert

    You know al-Qaeda are Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. They also have very little traction with any scholar of note or any of our institutions. But I will say, they do have a bigger appeal because they actually seem to give a hoot about not spilling Muslim blood arbitrarily.
     
    Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban are all Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. And who says Al-Qaeda or Taliban do not spill Muslim blood? What do you think they have been doing in Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria? ISIS evolved out of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Nusra Front or its latest incarnation in Syria was an Al-Qaeda affiliate. Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda of Arabian Peninsula are bombing Yemen and killing Muslims. What about Libya?

    Abu Musab Zarqawi who was the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq was bombing and killings Muslims in Iraq unless you also don't consider Shias are Muslim like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. The main source of support for all these extremist groups is Saudi Arabia. To use the term used by the late King Abdullah we should cut the head of the snake (Saudi Arabia).
  144. @headrick
    Islam does not believe in the separation of church and state. The state in the US and most of the world has it's own secular religion, and if you concede and live with your private religion superimposed on it, you will not satisfied unless your religion is only the trappings of a tribe, without serious ethics that have social consequences. Christianity used to be imbued in your whole life, ethics, morals, and whatever consequences it might have politically, but now days, the cowardly Christians in the US are content to be immersed in a sea of hostile values in the public square. Homosexuality, abortion, sexuality of all stripes, the primacy of socialism as the center of morality, - And not offending people and being "nice" is a lever used to beat down any dissonant voices from
    the religious teachings of the past.
    This is why Putin, kneeling in the snow praying with Kirill, seeming to stand for a state
    that is not hostile to Christianity, gets traction with so many in the US.
    I think cantonization is the answer. Worked in Switzerland. County sized states which
    allow the religion of choice to prevail. If you want to live in a state with a secular religion, that would be a choice for you. find a canton to your liking. If you are a traditional Catholic, and want to be immersed in that, go for it. If you are Muslim, find a canton to your liking. The trick is to find some non intrusive way to form a federation for the sake of common trade and maybe some short term common effort, and the confederation is strictly voluntary, leave any time you want. And you can be kicked out for bad behavior. The founders of the US probably envisioned something like that.
    I would go for a weaker union and in light of the monster which it has become, some kind of guarantee that you can secede without being murdered.

    Hey headrick,

    Bro – I like your style – some very good, out-of-the-box thinking. Along the lines of good neighbors make good fences. If the whole house of cards comes crashing down, we will need thinkers like this to raise up a society that avoids the pitfalls of the last one.

    Peace – much respect.

    • Replies: @anon
    Talha,

    Is this true:

    Islam does not believe in the separation of church and state
     
    and if so to what extent? I'm not a Koranic scholar and have no intention of becoming one but this particular point would seem to be of some interest even to non-Muslims.

    Of course separation is not really the ideal in a Christian society either (there's an encyclical of Leo XIII very much to the point but unfortunately I don't have the reference), but is the idea really antithetical to mainstream Muslim thought?
  145. @attilathehen
    WOW! As an American who can read (yes, I know a shock), I don't know a thing about Somalis.

    First, are you Jewish/black/Asian? Is your other half from these groups? Or maybe you are a degenerate Christian who believes Christianity can work for low IQers.

    How about those Somalis in Minnesota? How's that integration going?

    Didn't a Somali run into college students just recently?


    Your comment points to IQ deficiency or degeneracy within yourself.

    You can't handle the truth.

    Your somewhat idiosyncratic approach to prose construction leaves the connection you intend between your last two sentences to be guessed at.

    As an IQ expert do you consider that not being able to handle the truth is a cognitive deficiency? Always? Sometimes? In JS’s case? Depending on some unstated factor? Or are you referring only to an emotional syndrome? Genetically based? Correlated with IQ? Causally conmected to IQ measured cognitive function?

    There, no more complaints please of failure to reply from this poor Wizard apprentice (contributions to fare to Kansas accepted gratefully even if the Kansas connection is just an opportunistic add-on courtesy of some of the older? UR commenters)

  146. @Svigor

    It is people who are intolerant, not religions. We can see this intolerance even in the comments of liberals…”basket of deplorable” anyone. And even the threads here are full of people so full of themselves and their favorite ideologies that they’ll happily bash Muslims without even having lived with them.
     
    I have opinions on the Moon landings, despite not having been on the Moon to witness the event.

    It is sophistical, though not very sophisticated intellectually, to say that it is people not religions that are intolerant.

    Of course it is not absolutely clear whether a linguistic or empirical truth is being asserted.

    To cut through ….. would the one you quote fail to understand and be able to discuss rationally the proposition that the religion of Jesus is more tolerant than the religion of Yahweh and El in the Torah?

  147. @attilathehen
    hey talha, the USA is better off without Somalis.

    First, am I correct in assuming you are a Muslim? Your continual use of the word "peace" makes me think you are employing taqiyya.

    So, if you are Muslim, you are a Christian heretic who follows a pedophile.

    Next, are you Asian/black (most Muslims are)? I am a Caucasian Christian
    woman and you are inferior to me.

    If you are Asian/black you, (along with Somalis) cannot be a part of the Caucasian/
    European Christian Europagan West. You and the places whence you come are low
    IQ/evolutionary catastrophes.

    I am having a good laugh because jtgw, Wizard of OZ, jacques sheete will not answer
    my comments. How brave of you to come to their defense.

    So, first tell me if you are Asian/black/Muslim and then I can continue to prove you
    wrong.

    Hey attila,

    the USA is better off without Somalis

    Cool – pssst, talking to the wrong guy, I didn’t invite them.

    you are a Muslim?

    You got me!

    employing taqiyya

    LOL! Lady, you have no idea who you are talking to. Any of the regular UNZ people can vouch for my consistency. Or I may be saying ‘peace’ because I actually mean it.

    you are a Christian heretic

    You mean the old school theory floated by John of Damascus? The ‘Heresy of the Ishmaelites’?
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    It’s a rational theory; it was copied over from Christianity – that explains the similarities. Another rational theory for the similarities is that it was sent from the same Divine source in order to fix what the Christians and others made mistakes on; which is what it claims. Both seem quite rational conclusions to me.

    who follows a pedophile

    Meh – see my reply to Svigor.

    are you Asian/black

    From Pakistan originally, yes.

    I am a Caucasian Christian woman

    I am married to a Caucasian female convert of Swedish stock – are you trying to impress me? Technically, I have three spots open, but my teachers have said an emphatic no to polygamy for any of their students.

    you are inferior to me

    Correct – in a bikini contest, my scores would be well in the negative double digits. But, by all means preach your version of racially-superior Christianity and then wonder why you are shedding numbers and why we are buying out empty churches.

    you cannot be a part of the Caucasian/European Christian Europagan West

    OK – when the government officially sends me a notice that revokes my right to stay, I promise I won’t fight. What about my kids, they are White (well 50%) – they definitely look White.

    You and the places whence you come are low IQ/evolutionary catastrophes

    Yet somehow they allowed me to sneak into the GATE program in my youth in California – suckerzzz! And somehow all the High IQ nations haven’t got the memo that they better get their population birth rates out of free fall – that seems cogently fit in an evolutionary sense – I think?

    their defense

    They don’t need me to defend them; I’ve interacted with them before, they are intelligent men. Perhaps they are simply staying silent on a topic of which they don’t have a particular expertise – that, in and of itself, connotes intelligence and self-control.

    tell me if you are Asian/black/Muslim

    Here you go; I am a Muslim of Pakistani origin who follows the Sunni Hanafi school of jurisprudence and the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi school of spiritual purification and I have been studying at the feet of scholars from both these oceans for over a decade – enough info?

    I can continue to prove you wrong

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YVTksxZMOA

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    For Talha:

    we are buying out empty churches

    18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

    22 Understanding is a wellspring of life unto him that hath it: but the instruction of fools is folly.

    24 Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones.

    For the hen:

    27 An ungodly man (woman) diggeth up evil: and in his (her) lips there is as a burning fire.
    , @attilathehen
    Hey, Talha. So you are low IQ degenerate Asian. You married a degenerate Swedish woman.

    You are a Christian heretic. But I would not accept you because you are an Asian so that's moot.

    You have offspring who are now absorbed into the Pakistani world so there will be no degeneration into the European gene pool.

    I hope you don't live in the West. There is no reason for you to be here. Pakistan awaits you.
  148. @raphee
    It is people who are intolerant, not religions. We can see this intolerance even in the comments of liberals..."basket of deplorable" anyone. And even the threads here are full of people so full of themselves and their favorite ideologies that they'll happily bash Muslims without even having lived with them.

    Btw, apostasy is not a capital crime in the Quran. There is considerable difference of opinion amongst Islamic scholars on this point. Like I said, it's people.

    I agree with you that Islam does need a Islamic Reformation. For that Western imperialism and experimental democracy ( using their favorite bogeymen, kings, dictators, assorted and selected Democrats) has to end.

    Having found the origin of the quote that I criticised in my immediately preceding comment replying to Svigor I see that I may have been unfair to your emphasis because of course much of the problem of (undesirable) intolerance is individual. However you do say “not religions” and in the light of your agreeing that Islam needs a Reformation that is clearly a misstatement of your position.

    It is Interesting how long it took for the Reformation to produce tolerance in Christianity – even partially with side glances at those tribal Micks/Prots and abortions formally criminalised etc . Like democracy a tolerant Islam is probably going to require prosperity widely spread to be consistent with comfortable civilised life. Overpopulation/excessive fertility, especially amongst the uneducated, remains perhaps the greatest threat to our grandchildren enjoying a comfortable world which hasn’t destroyed too much that is good (off-beat question: will it prove easier to restore Palmyra’s ISIS destroyed heritage in 2060 or to reproduce a dinosaur?).

    • Replies: @raphee
    It is good to see this reply from you. After reading your reply to svigor I did have to pause and try to understand your intent, but frankly gave up.

    What i was implying was that all religions and all ideologies, Islam, Christianity, democracy, capitalism, communism et al, provide enough ammunition within their respective charters that any individual, once he puts his mind to it, can twist and misuse it to achieve any objectives. All he needs is the good luck of a certain set of circumstances--time, place, history-- to create the perfect storm for his propaganda to be effective within a critical mass of people. This is not about the superiority of one religion over the other. Each civilization has its day and it's fall. History is ample evidence of that.

    The particular problem with religions is that unlike modern day theories of capitalism or democracy , religions have a much longer history; even worse their content is moralistic, or at the least includes intangibles, that are far less malleable to empirical testing. Hence not only historically but even in modern times different sects use the same scripture to arrive at different results. Sometimes these varying interpretations have been used to achieve political objectives instead of for intellectual discourse.

    I hope this explains my position and statement better. Of course the subject is worthy of a treatise, but this should suffice.

    As to Islamic Reformation, I would agree that prosperity is important. Even more important for me is that Muslims especially the youth get educated, have hopes of a better tomorrow, and they have freedom, political, intellectual, and material. It is when this hope comes alive amongst Muslims that ISIS and AlQaeda will die their death, for their tools of recruitment wouldve disappeared.

    Side note... Palmyra will rise again. But dinosaurs i love also.
  149. Closest practice Western militaries have fielded is that of privateering:

    I’d hardly build (or respect) a religion centered around a privateer.

    If the charge is that he lived fat off the money – nonsense – all the sources show he lived a spartan life, barely ever eating meat and dying in debt to someone for a sack of wheat – even while he had the entire Arabian peninsula under his control.

    It isn’t. I don’t care that he was a vegan, or a lousy businessman. Just that he has enshrined banditry into a religion with millions of fanatical devotees.

    Correct – or ransomed them, or traded them in prisoner swaps, or forgave them, depending on circumstance. Your assumption is that we must necessarily execute prisoners in violation of current war conventions (of which Muslim nations are a party) – please cite evidence from our scholars (not your interpretation of our texts) saying so.

    I’ve made no such assumption. Merely stated that, give that Muhammed is The Model, murdering prisoners is halal.

    Correct – and sometimes emancipated them. Your assumption is that we must necessarily have slavery in our societies – please cite evidence from our scholars (not your interpretation of our texts) saying so.

    It is not. It is that there is no Islamic argument to be made against slavery; on the contrary, there is an Islamic argument to be made for – and only for – slavery. Slavery is halal.

    Incorrect – the Lady Aisha (ra) – a jurist of the highest rank from the first generation – by her own admission had reached biological adulthood at nine (when she consumated marriage), which is a reflection of the realities of early menstruation of the women of her time and locality:

    My mistake; he laid down with nine year old “women.” I stand corrected; sex with nine year old “women” is halal.

    Really, the only societies where this even applies are parts of the Sahel region or rural parts of the Arabian peninsula. Most Muslim societies marry women in the upper teens (at the earliest) – 15 and after.

    Yes, but any Muslim who says “old enough to bleed, old enough to breed” has the Holy Koran, and the Prophet Muhammed on his side. Alternatively, he might argue that nine years old is the age of sexual majority and eligibility for marriage.

    It’s great that you’re citing Medieval history to apologize for Islam, though; the whole argument against the religion often being summed up as “Medieval.”

    I will give you credit for consistency though if you are willing to call out all previous Christian, European and American societies for centuries before the rules were changed as pedophiles, child-molesters or at least enablers. Of course, you may have to face them on the Day of Judgement for calumny – but it’s your afterlife, not mine.

    Peace.

    I’m not in this to earn chits from you. I will say this, if one of my ancestors stepped through time from the Middle Ages and couldn’t get with the current thinking on this subject, I’d expect him to get thrown in jail like any Muslim pervert. But more to the point, he’d have nothing in his Holy Book to back his practice, very much unlike a Muslim.

    Since we’re giving out credits, I’ll give you points for honesty. Kudos.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Svigor,

    I’d hardly build (or respect) a religion centered around a privateer.
     
    Neither would I - he fought his battles according to the rules at the times and introduced a far more limited form of warfare than existed in the Hijaz. Which is why, even 8th and 10th century works on warfare, you have scholars stating that even if non-Muslims use their own women and children as human shields, one must avoid killing the women and children as much as one can and only strike at the fighters or that women and children cannot be killed even on a battlefield unless they are armed and only if they are attacking, not retreating - nothing is codified at that level in any other tradition at that date. You may think these rules should be obvious, if you do, you have never read a serious book on the norms of historic warfare.

    Just that he has enshrined banditry into a religion with millions of fanatical devotees.
     
    If by 'banditry', you mean cross border raiding - then yes, if Muslims did not have an acknowledged treaty with a people across from them, the sovereign ruler could authorize cross-border raids. Of course the same occurred from the other side as well (other kingdoms would organize these kinds of raids from their vassals on the borders), Muslims were just usually better at it - though those Cossacks, those guys were raiders par excellence! And if the non-Muslims took off with possessions and slaves, it was acknowledged that the loot belonged to them - no harm, no foul. These were laws of reciprocity. In fact in Imam Shaybani's 'Siyar al-Sagheer' under the chapter "Acquisition of Muslim Property Earlier Taken away by Non-Muslims as Booty", he mentions that if non-Muslims raid into Muslim territory and carry off possessions, and then they come back into Muslim territory with permission (security pact - 'aman') and with those same possessions, the original Muslim owners have no legal right to them except by purchase. Again no harm, no foul.

    A lot of rules depend on reciprocity - so why should it be the case that Muslims must commit these raids now, when they are in mutual international agreements not to? Can you name me one scholar of worth or institution that rejects these international obligations?


    murdering prisoners
     
    First off, no one in history would take it seriously that killing male prisoners of war is 'murder' - that would be, to them, as risible as when Israelis claimed their soldiers were 'kidnapped' by Hezbollah. Everyone executed prisoners when they deemed it necessary. We do not do it now because we have international agreements - to which Muslim nations are signatory and should abide by. Again, which Muslim scholars or institutions reject abiding by these norms?

    Slavery is halal.
     
    Correct, but it was halal in Christendom for centuries too. Are you seriously saying the earliest Christians simply did not 'get it' - that it took them almost 1800+ years to figure out that it was immoral? And what then of the earliest Christians who owned slaves and lived as contemporaries with the Son of Mary (pbuh), are they immoral?
    http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195136098.001.0001/acprof-9780195136098

    Slavery is in principle permitted, but as Mufti Taqi Uthmani (former Grand Mufti of Pakistan) stated:
    "Here something important should be kept in mind, which is that most of the nations of the world have today formed a pact between them, and have agreed that a prisoner from the captives of war will not be put into slavery, and most of the Islamic lands today are participants of this agreement, particularly the members of the United Nations, so it is not permissible for an Islamic country today to put a captive into slavery as long as this pact remains."

    So it is in the non-Muslim's court to keep this agreement alive - you go back to enslaving us, we go back to enslaving you. No harm, no foul. Let's keep things as they are shall we - we'll deal with our slavers like Daesh.


    sex with nine year old “women” is halal
     
    Look, I don't take anyone seriously who won't step up and denounce all of the previous generations of Europeans and Christians who thought it was fine to sleep with a woman once she started bleeding as pedophiles. It is rank hypocrisy and posturing. So, were they all pedophiles or enablers - it is a yes or no question? And how the hell did men like Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin and Luther completely miss that - wow!

    he might argue that nine years old is the age of sexual majority and eligibility for marriage
     
    He can argue whatever he wants, it is irrelevant unless he is qualified. First off, sexual maturity is what is key here as stated by Prof. Nigosian (an Armenian Christian minister and historian of Islam):
    "It was not uncommon at one time for children to be married even before they reached puberty, though they were not permitted to cohabit until they were at least sexually mature."
    Islam: Its History, Teaching, and Practices

    Currently, most Muslim countries have laws that raise the age of when a marriage is legally permitted. These rules also have the backing of the Muslim scholars. Some places like Yemen, Mauritania and others still allow marriage very young - at puberty - and have the backing of the Muslim scholars. This is a cultural prerogative; which is why the Ottomans had already raised their age to 15 (look at that table again) when most states in America were still allowing it at 10.


    religion often being summed up as “Medieval.”
     
    As I stated to another on these forums, ‘Medieval’ is a pejorative in European cultures due to their experience – this is quite understandable. It is not the case with Muslims. The vast majority of the scholars I quote from are indeed medieval scholars; their depth of understanding and humanity is something that is deplorably lacking in modern-day Muslims. I'll take Medieval over Post-Modern any day.

    he’d have nothing in his Holy Book to back his practice
     
    Neither would he have anything in his Holy Book to interdict it - nor even to interdict having sex with someone before puberty (again, look at those age of consent laws - going from late 1800s back to Medieval times - using an arbitrary age of 10 - do you really think all those girls had bled):
    “It needs to be remembered that many Medieval widows were not old, Important heiresses were often married between the ages of 5 and 10 and might find themselves widowed while still in their teens.”
    Medieval Miscellany - published by McGill Univ. Press

    By the way, Massachusetts and Kanasas allow 12 year olds to get married with parental consent (so your ancestor may simply have to cross the right border):
    http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html

    At least we have that rule (the Prophet [pbuh] married his young wife at 6 - but waited to cohabit until she was older) - as a Muslim scholar once explained; Islam actually raised the age of marriage in many pre-modern societies - a thought that should give us pause.

    It's not about 'chits' bro, it's about coherency, consistency and principle.

    Peace and much respect for being courteous in your reply - that is heads and tails above the invective I've had to deal with from others.

  150. Talha, I respect you, you seem like a good person, and you conduct yourself with dignity, as far as I have seen. And I’m honestly not trying to tear down your religion. I just have an extremely low tolerance for BS. I call a spade a spade.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Svigor,

    And I’m honestly not trying to tear down your religion...I call a spade a spade.
     
    Likewise. I have no problems with people rejecting of criticizing Islam or trying to tear down my religion - not one. At times I actually appreciate it because it honestly keeps one stronger in being challenged - it's a bit like exercise. I simply ask that people criticize it honestly for its actual beliefs and doctrines truthfully, not make up a straw man that only exists in their heads and then beat it down.

    Peace and respect.
    , @attilathehen
    Svigor you sound like a cuck. Tearing down Islam is what you should be working on.
  151. @Talha
    C'mon Greasy,

    You know al-Qaeda are Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. They also have very little traction with any scholar of note or any of our institutions. But I will say, they do have a bigger appeal because they actually seem to give a hoot about not spilling Muslim blood arbitrarily. I do have to give them that - they may be extremists, but at least they aren't at the Khawarij end of the spectrum.

    Peace.

    You know al-Qaeda are Salafi/Wahhabi extremists.

    al Qaeda are extremists, but nobody would say that they aren’t practicing a form of Islam, unless that is what you are saying right now. A very bad, very extreme form of Islam that almost all muslims and Islamic scholars reject, but it a version of Islam none the less. Can you imagine a “secular” Al Qaeda member? Of course not. In contrast, ISIS’s supporters and foot soldiers are virtually all secular.

    ISIS is something new. They are just killers who use Islam as a justification, but most ISIS guys (and girls) aren’t very religious. They are just psychopaths who want to kill so they use Islam as a justification.

    You can find Muslims who sympathize with Al Qaeda, but 1.6 billion Muslims hate ISIS virtually unanimously.

    The world has never seen anything like ISIS before.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Greasy,

    The world has never seen anything like ISIS before.
     
    We have actually; Khawarij are one (the OG - they did takfir of and killed the Companions - that is nuts!!!), Qarmatis are another (they stole the black stone and destroyed the Kaaba and completely stopped the Hajj by murdering pilgrims for years) and the Almohads were also very close (before they lost their zealotry and learned to chill out), and others.

    I would think you would know about the Almohads - what do you think Rambam was doing in Egypt instead of his native Spain?

    Extremism is a problem; and it lifts its ugly head every few centuries among the Muslims, then it either gets militarily defeated or dies down on its own. This is a known bug in the system (as opposed to feature) and the phenomenon was prophesied as such and warned about. With any people who take their religion seriously, this is a recurring problem and it can never be completely eradicated. The West (which had its own extremist problem when people took religion seriously) seemed to have eradicated it by completely defanging its religious tradition and now it is mostly a hobby or not taken seriously or, even worse considered irrelevant. Having adopted much of Left-liberal discourse, it has very little in its arsenal to combat it. So it has to stand by twirling thumbs while people piss on the cross in public (literally or metaphorically).

    As a Muslim, watching history unfold and seeing the direction the West is going, I'll keep the tradition, warts and all.

    Peace.
  152. @another fred

    The assumption that Daesh represents a Caliphate or even the correct methodology to establish one is a joke – also according to anyone who studies our tradition.
     
    I did not "assume" it, Baghdadi claimed it, and thousands followed. Nor did I claim that his followers were scholars, rather "the violent portion of its population". All populations have a portion of such.

    I did say, and believe, that the example of the prophet's blending of government and religion give Islam and the Ummah problems that other contemporary religions do not have. The expectation of the Mahdi as a political figure does also.

    If the Roman Catholic Church still believed they had a claim to secular power I would see a problem there also.

    None of this should be taken to mean that I believe "universal humanism" or any other "ism" is the answer to civilization's discontents. We in the West have our share of troubles, just of a different shape.

    I did not “assume” it, Baghdadi claimed it, and thousands followed.

    This actually is a massive problem in our Ummah; this is a legitimate point. We are having a crisis among the Muslims. People are not listening to the qualified scholarship and they are following either their own opinions or the ignorant/unqualified (aka keyboard Muftis). Or janitors-turned-mufti:
    “By the time Benyettou was 22, Filiu writes, he was spending his time perusing jihadi websites and dressing in garb that primarily only Muslim preachers wore. When the mosque he belonged to expelled him, he joined another; it was there, The Washington Post says, that he worked as a janitor and met Cherif Kouachi.”
    “Benyettou operated in the margins of the religious community, defying the older imams and scorning their speeches,” Filiu writes. Benyettou, whom followers called Abu Abdallah, Filiu adds, “built up his own brand of Salafi-esque preaching, far from any established guidance, with a strong emphasis on jihad.”
    http://www.newsweek.com/meet-farid-benyettou-man-who-trained-paris-attack-suspect-cherif-kouachi-298028

    This is an acknowledged problem and we absolutely need to address this among our people – that is for sure.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77QODDURVMg

    “Verily, God does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but rather he takes away knowledge with the death of the scholars until he leaves no scholar behind and the people turn to the ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to give religious judgments without knowledge, thus they are led astray and lead others astray.” – reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    • Replies: @another fred

    This actually is a massive problem in our Ummah; this is a legitimate point.
     
    I appreciate your candor. I believe the "massive problem" is part of what has set a collision course between Islam and the West (formerly Christendom).

    This is not to lay blame at the feet of all Muslims, nor to exonerate the West, we are all but men, behaving as men, but I get frustrated a bit with people who deny the reality.

    Just to be clear, I expect the West to continue to push against the jihadis (in response to perceived provocations) and I expect this to create solidarity and resistance within a larger and larger part of the Ummah (in response to perceived injustice). Much blood will be shed.
  153. @Talha
    C'mon Greasy,

    You know al-Qaeda are Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. They also have very little traction with any scholar of note or any of our institutions. But I will say, they do have a bigger appeal because they actually seem to give a hoot about not spilling Muslim blood arbitrarily. I do have to give them that - they may be extremists, but at least they aren't at the Khawarij end of the spectrum.

    Peace.

    You know al-Qaeda are Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. They also have very little traction with any scholar of note or any of our institutions. But I will say, they do have a bigger appeal because they actually seem to give a hoot about not spilling Muslim blood arbitrarily.

    Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban are all Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. And who says Al-Qaeda or Taliban do not spill Muslim blood? What do you think they have been doing in Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria? ISIS evolved out of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Nusra Front or its latest incarnation in Syria was an Al-Qaeda affiliate. Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda of Arabian Peninsula are bombing Yemen and killing Muslims. What about Libya?

    Abu Musab Zarqawi who was the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq was bombing and killings Muslims in Iraq unless you also don’t consider Shias are Muslim like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. The main source of support for all these extremist groups is Saudi Arabia. To use the term used by the late King Abdullah we should cut the head of the snake (Saudi Arabia).

    • Replies: @Talha
    Salaam Bro,

    You are right, I should have been more guarded with my words; al-Qaeda are definitely spillers of Muslim blood - just not to the extent of Daesh (in fact, they denounced Daesh for being too bloody). When you are being denounced by al-Qaeda for being too bloody, you have serious, serious problems.

    Taliban are more on the traditional Hanafi (yes we can have our extremists too, just happens a lot less) side mixed in with just a pinch too much of Salafi/Wahabi influence.

    As a traditional Sunni, I consider certain parts of Shia doctrine to be heterodox, but they are still Ahl ul-Qiblah and thus brothers in faith. Whatever mistakes in doctrine they have, I pray it is overlooked by Allah on the Day of Judgement - paradise is big enough for all of us. I expect them to have the same attitude towards me. I am a big supporter of the Amman Message (which was signed by the top authorities of both the Sunni and Shia):
    "They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim."
    http://ammanmessage.com/

    And I full-heartedly acknowledge the strides many Shiah ulema have made towards unity, like the numerous fatawa calling for the Shiah to stop cursing key Sahabah - that is huge deal. Looking for even more advancements from both sides in the future.

    Wa Salaam.

  154. […] This originally appeared on The Unz Review. […]

  155. It’s a big, foolish mistake – trying to explain events by interpreting religious texts and analyzing religious dogmas. Of any religion. The texts don’t mean a thing; they could as well read ‘blah-blah-blah’.

    The point is to unite the population (the tribe, originally), and to establish an authority, enforced by omniscient and omnipotent supernatural being, or beings. To unite, to control, to motivate.

    These days, there are better, really omnipresent tools of control: the TV, the movies, the radio, the internet – ‘priests’ who live inside your home, conditioning you 16 hours per day, every day.

    But these are only tools. Tools used by elites to achieve their goals. To multiply their wealth and extend their power, or to remain independent in the face of superior force. When your elites attempt to conquer foreign lands, you must expect a reaction, a blowback. It’s not because the Muslims (in aggregate) are violent. No, that’s nonsense. It’s because your elites are violent.

    • Replies: @another fred

    It’s a big, foolish mistake – trying to explain events by interpreting religious texts and analyzing religious dogmas. Of any religion. The texts don’t mean a thing; they could as well read ‘blah-blah-blah’.

    The point is to unite the population (the tribe, originally), and to establish an authority, enforced by omniscient and omnipotent supernatural being, or beings. To unite, to control, to motivate.
     
    That seems a bit self contradictory, if the point is to establish and enforce an authority (agreed), then how can it be a mistake to analyze the texts used to "establish and enforce"?

    If you mean that the supernatural content of the texts can be neglected, that is a fair point to argue, but the social aspects of the texts are essential to the culture.
  156. @Talha
    Hey attila,

    the USA is better off without Somalis
     
    Cool - pssst, talking to the wrong guy, I didn't invite them.

    you are a Muslim?
     
    You got me!

    employing taqiyya
     
    LOL! Lady, you have no idea who you are talking to. Any of the regular UNZ people can vouch for my consistency. Or I may be saying 'peace' because I actually mean it.

    you are a Christian heretic
     
    You mean the old school theory floated by John of Damascus? The 'Heresy of the Ishmaelites'?
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    It's a rational theory; it was copied over from Christianity - that explains the similarities. Another rational theory for the similarities is that it was sent from the same Divine source in order to fix what the Christians and others made mistakes on; which is what it claims. Both seem quite rational conclusions to me.


    who follows a pedophile
     
    Meh - see my reply to Svigor.

    are you Asian/black
     
    From Pakistan originally, yes.

    I am a Caucasian Christian woman
     
    I am married to a Caucasian female convert of Swedish stock - are you trying to impress me? Technically, I have three spots open, but my teachers have said an emphatic no to polygamy for any of their students.

    you are inferior to me
     
    Correct - in a bikini contest, my scores would be well in the negative double digits. But, by all means preach your version of racially-superior Christianity and then wonder why you are shedding numbers and why we are buying out empty churches.

    you cannot be a part of the Caucasian/European Christian Europagan West
     
    OK - when the government officially sends me a notice that revokes my right to stay, I promise I won't fight. What about my kids, they are White (well 50%) - they definitely look White.

    You and the places whence you come are low IQ/evolutionary catastrophes
     
    Yet somehow they allowed me to sneak into the GATE program in my youth in California - suckerzzz! And somehow all the High IQ nations haven't got the memo that they better get their population birth rates out of free fall - that seems cogently fit in an evolutionary sense - I think?

    their defense
     
    They don't need me to defend them; I've interacted with them before, they are intelligent men. Perhaps they are simply staying silent on a topic of which they don't have a particular expertise - that, in and of itself, connotes intelligence and self-control.

    tell me if you are Asian/black/Muslim
     
    Here you go; I am a Muslim of Pakistani origin who follows the Sunni Hanafi school of jurisprudence and the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi school of spiritual purification and I have been studying at the feet of scholars from both these oceans for over a decade - enough info?

    I can continue to prove you wrong
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YVTksxZMOA

    Peace.

    For Talha:

    we are buying out empty churches

    18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

    22 Understanding is a wellspring of life unto him that hath it: but the instruction of fools is folly.

    24 Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones.

    For the hen:

    27 An ungodly man (woman) diggeth up evil: and in his (her) lips there is as a burning fire.

  157. @MEexpert

    You know al-Qaeda are Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. They also have very little traction with any scholar of note or any of our institutions. But I will say, they do have a bigger appeal because they actually seem to give a hoot about not spilling Muslim blood arbitrarily.
     
    Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban are all Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. And who says Al-Qaeda or Taliban do not spill Muslim blood? What do you think they have been doing in Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria? ISIS evolved out of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Nusra Front or its latest incarnation in Syria was an Al-Qaeda affiliate. Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda of Arabian Peninsula are bombing Yemen and killing Muslims. What about Libya?

    Abu Musab Zarqawi who was the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq was bombing and killings Muslims in Iraq unless you also don't consider Shias are Muslim like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. The main source of support for all these extremist groups is Saudi Arabia. To use the term used by the late King Abdullah we should cut the head of the snake (Saudi Arabia).

    Salaam Bro,

    You are right, I should have been more guarded with my words; al-Qaeda are definitely spillers of Muslim blood – just not to the extent of Daesh (in fact, they denounced Daesh for being too bloody). When you are being denounced by al-Qaeda for being too bloody, you have serious, serious problems.

    Taliban are more on the traditional Hanafi (yes we can have our extremists too, just happens a lot less) side mixed in with just a pinch too much of Salafi/Wahabi influence.

    As a traditional Sunni, I consider certain parts of Shia doctrine to be heterodox, but they are still Ahl ul-Qiblah and thus brothers in faith. Whatever mistakes in doctrine they have, I pray it is overlooked by Allah on the Day of Judgement – paradise is big enough for all of us. I expect them to have the same attitude towards me. I am a big supporter of the Amman Message (which was signed by the top authorities of both the Sunni and Shia):
    “They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.”
    http://ammanmessage.com/

    And I full-heartedly acknowledge the strides many Shiah ulema have made towards unity, like the numerous fatawa calling for the Shiah to stop cursing key Sahabah – that is huge deal. Looking for even more advancements from both sides in the future.

    Wa Salaam.

  158. @Greasy William

    You know al-Qaeda are Salafi/Wahhabi extremists.
     
    al Qaeda are extremists, but nobody would say that they aren't practicing a form of Islam, unless that is what you are saying right now. A very bad, very extreme form of Islam that almost all muslims and Islamic scholars reject, but it a version of Islam none the less. Can you imagine a "secular" Al Qaeda member? Of course not. In contrast, ISIS's supporters and foot soldiers are virtually all secular.

    ISIS is something new. They are just killers who use Islam as a justification, but most ISIS guys (and girls) aren't very religious. They are just psychopaths who want to kill so they use Islam as a justification.

    You can find Muslims who sympathize with Al Qaeda, but 1.6 billion Muslims hate ISIS virtually unanimously.

    The world has never seen anything like ISIS before.

    Hey Greasy,

    The world has never seen anything like ISIS before.

    We have actually; Khawarij are one (the OG – they did takfir of and killed the Companions – that is nuts!!!), Qarmatis are another (they stole the black stone and destroyed the Kaaba and completely stopped the Hajj by murdering pilgrims for years) and the Almohads were also very close (before they lost their zealotry and learned to chill out), and others.

    I would think you would know about the Almohads – what do you think Rambam was doing in Egypt instead of his native Spain?

    Extremism is a problem; and it lifts its ugly head every few centuries among the Muslims, then it either gets militarily defeated or dies down on its own. This is a known bug in the system (as opposed to feature) and the phenomenon was prophesied as such and warned about. With any people who take their religion seriously, this is a recurring problem and it can never be completely eradicated. The West (which had its own extremist problem when people took religion seriously) seemed to have eradicated it by completely defanging its religious tradition and now it is mostly a hobby or not taken seriously or, even worse considered irrelevant. Having adopted much of Left-liberal discourse, it has very little in its arsenal to combat it. So it has to stand by twirling thumbs while people piss on the cross in public (literally or metaphorically).

    As a Muslim, watching history unfold and seeing the direction the West is going, I’ll keep the tradition, warts and all.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Greasy William

    We have actually; Khawarij are one (the OG – they did takfir of and killed the Companions – that is nuts!!!), Qarmatis are another (they stole the black stone and destroyed the Kaaba and completely stopped the Hajj by murdering pilgrims for years) and the Almohads were also very close (before they lost their zealotry and learned to chill out), and others.
     
    Weren't all those groups more like Al Qaeda than ISIS?
  159. @Svigor
    Talha, I respect you, you seem like a good person, and you conduct yourself with dignity, as far as I have seen. And I'm honestly not trying to tear down your religion. I just have an extremely low tolerance for BS. I call a spade a spade.

    Hey Svigor,

    And I’m honestly not trying to tear down your religion…I call a spade a spade.

    Likewise. I have no problems with people rejecting of criticizing Islam or trying to tear down my religion – not one. At times I actually appreciate it because it honestly keeps one stronger in being challenged – it’s a bit like exercise. I simply ask that people criticize it honestly for its actual beliefs and doctrines truthfully, not make up a straw man that only exists in their heads and then beat it down.

    Peace and respect.

  160. @iffen
    For Talha:

    we are buying out empty churches

    18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

    22 Understanding is a wellspring of life unto him that hath it: but the instruction of fools is folly.

    24 Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones.

    For the hen:

    27 An ungodly man (woman) diggeth up evil: and in his (her) lips there is as a burning fire.

    Hey iffen,

    Acknowledged – thanks.

    Peace.

  161. @anon
    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.

    And the first post here totally misses the point of the article.

  162. […] This originally appeared on The Unz Review. […]

  163. @Mao Cheng Ji
    It's a big, foolish mistake - trying to explain events by interpreting religious texts and analyzing religious dogmas. Of any religion. The texts don't mean a thing; they could as well read 'blah-blah-blah'.

    The point is to unite the population (the tribe, originally), and to establish an authority, enforced by omniscient and omnipotent supernatural being, or beings. To unite, to control, to motivate.

    These days, there are better, really omnipresent tools of control: the TV, the movies, the radio, the internet - 'priests' who live inside your home, conditioning you 16 hours per day, every day.

    But these are only tools. Tools used by elites to achieve their goals. To multiply their wealth and extend their power, or to remain independent in the face of superior force. When your elites attempt to conquer foreign lands, you must expect a reaction, a blowback. It's not because the Muslims (in aggregate) are violent. No, that's nonsense. It's because your elites are violent.

    It’s a big, foolish mistake – trying to explain events by interpreting religious texts and analyzing religious dogmas. Of any religion. The texts don’t mean a thing; they could as well read ‘blah-blah-blah’.

    The point is to unite the population (the tribe, originally), and to establish an authority, enforced by omniscient and omnipotent supernatural being, or beings. To unite, to control, to motivate.

    That seems a bit self contradictory, if the point is to establish and enforce an authority (agreed), then how can it be a mistake to analyze the texts used to “establish and enforce”?

    If you mean that the supernatural content of the texts can be neglected, that is a fair point to argue, but the social aspects of the texts are essential to the culture.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    if the point is to establish and enforce an authority (agreed), then how can it be a mistake to analyze the texts used to “establish and enforce”?
     
    Because it's a bunch of stories, and their only message is 'obey', 'don't question authorities', like in that Carpenter's movie. What's to analyze?

    the social aspects of the texts are essential to the culture
     
    There are so many words in those books that anything can be spun and justified. Priests form the culture, not texts. The same texts used by both Catholics and Protestants, by the Amish and by the LRA in Uganda, creating completely different cultures.
  164. @Svigor

    Closest practice Western militaries have fielded is that of privateering:
     
    I'd hardly build (or respect) a religion centered around a privateer.

    If the charge is that he lived fat off the money – nonsense – all the sources show he lived a spartan life, barely ever eating meat and dying in debt to someone for a sack of wheat – even while he had the entire Arabian peninsula under his control.
     
    It isn't. I don't care that he was a vegan, or a lousy businessman. Just that he has enshrined banditry into a religion with millions of fanatical devotees.

    Correct – or ransomed them, or traded them in prisoner swaps, or forgave them, depending on circumstance. Your assumption is that we must necessarily execute prisoners in violation of current war conventions (of which Muslim nations are a party) – please cite evidence from our scholars (not your interpretation of our texts) saying so.
     
    I've made no such assumption. Merely stated that, give that Muhammed is The Model, murdering prisoners is halal.

    Correct – and sometimes emancipated them. Your assumption is that we must necessarily have slavery in our societies – please cite evidence from our scholars (not your interpretation of our texts) saying so.
     
    It is not. It is that there is no Islamic argument to be made against slavery; on the contrary, there is an Islamic argument to be made for - and only for - slavery. Slavery is halal.

    Incorrect – the Lady Aisha (ra) – a jurist of the highest rank from the first generation – by her own admission had reached biological adulthood at nine (when she consumated marriage), which is a reflection of the realities of early menstruation of the women of her time and locality:
     
    My mistake; he laid down with nine year old "women." I stand corrected; sex with nine year old "women" is halal.

    Really, the only societies where this even applies are parts of the Sahel region or rural parts of the Arabian peninsula. Most Muslim societies marry women in the upper teens (at the earliest) – 15 and after.
     
    Yes, but any Muslim who says "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" has the Holy Koran, and the Prophet Muhammed on his side. Alternatively, he might argue that nine years old is the age of sexual majority and eligibility for marriage.

    It's great that you're citing Medieval history to apologize for Islam, though; the whole argument against the religion often being summed up as "Medieval."

    I will give you credit for consistency though if you are willing to call out all previous Christian, European and American societies for centuries before the rules were changed as pedophiles, child-molesters or at least enablers. Of course, you may have to face them on the Day of Judgement for calumny – but it’s your afterlife, not mine.

    Peace.
     
    I'm not in this to earn chits from you. I will say this, if one of my ancestors stepped through time from the Middle Ages and couldn't get with the current thinking on this subject, I'd expect him to get thrown in jail like any Muslim pervert. But more to the point, he'd have nothing in his Holy Book to back his practice, very much unlike a Muslim.

    Since we're giving out credits, I'll give you points for honesty. Kudos.

    Hey Svigor,

    I’d hardly build (or respect) a religion centered around a privateer.

    Neither would I – he fought his battles according to the rules at the times and introduced a far more limited form of warfare than existed in the Hijaz. Which is why, even 8th and 10th century works on warfare, you have scholars stating that even if non-Muslims use their own women and children as human shields, one must avoid killing the women and children as much as one can and only strike at the fighters or that women and children cannot be killed even on a battlefield unless they are armed and only if they are attacking, not retreating – nothing is codified at that level in any other tradition at that date. You may think these rules should be obvious, if you do, you have never read a serious book on the norms of historic warfare.

    Just that he has enshrined banditry into a religion with millions of fanatical devotees.

    If by ‘banditry’, you mean cross border raiding – then yes, if Muslims did not have an acknowledged treaty with a people across from them, the sovereign ruler could authorize cross-border raids. Of course the same occurred from the other side as well (other kingdoms would organize these kinds of raids from their vassals on the borders), Muslims were just usually better at it – though those Cossacks, those guys were raiders par excellence! And if the non-Muslims took off with possessions and slaves, it was acknowledged that the loot belonged to them – no harm, no foul. These were laws of reciprocity. In fact in Imam Shaybani’s ‘Siyar al-Sagheer’ under the chapter “Acquisition of Muslim Property Earlier Taken away by Non-Muslims as Booty”, he mentions that if non-Muslims raid into Muslim territory and carry off possessions, and then they come back into Muslim territory with permission (security pact – ‘aman’) and with those same possessions, the original Muslim owners have no legal right to them except by purchase. Again no harm, no foul.

    A lot of rules depend on reciprocity – so why should it be the case that Muslims must commit these raids now, when they are in mutual international agreements not to? Can you name me one scholar of worth or institution that rejects these international obligations?

    murdering prisoners

    First off, no one in history would take it seriously that killing male prisoners of war is ‘murder’ – that would be, to them, as risible as when Israelis claimed their soldiers were ‘kidnapped’ by Hezbollah. Everyone executed prisoners when they deemed it necessary. We do not do it now because we have international agreements – to which Muslim nations are signatory and should abide by. Again, which Muslim scholars or institutions reject abiding by these norms?

    Slavery is halal.

    Correct, but it was halal in Christendom for centuries too. Are you seriously saying the earliest Christians simply did not ‘get it’ – that it took them almost 1800+ years to figure out that it was immoral? And what then of the earliest Christians who owned slaves and lived as contemporaries with the Son of Mary (pbuh), are they immoral?
    http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195136098.001.0001/acprof-9780195136098

    Slavery is in principle permitted, but as Mufti Taqi Uthmani (former Grand Mufti of Pakistan) stated:
    “Here something important should be kept in mind, which is that most of the nations of the world have today formed a pact between them, and have agreed that a prisoner from the captives of war will not be put into slavery, and most of the Islamic lands today are participants of this agreement, particularly the members of the United Nations, so it is not permissible for an Islamic country today to put a captive into slavery as long as this pact remains.”

    So it is in the non-Muslim’s court to keep this agreement alive – you go back to enslaving us, we go back to enslaving you. No harm, no foul. Let’s keep things as they are shall we – we’ll deal with our slavers like Daesh.

    sex with nine year old “women” is halal

    Look, I don’t take anyone seriously who won’t step up and denounce all of the previous generations of Europeans and Christians who thought it was fine to sleep with a woman once she started bleeding as pedophiles. It is rank hypocrisy and posturing. So, were they all pedophiles or enablers – it is a yes or no question? And how the hell did men like Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin and Luther completely miss that – wow!

    he might argue that nine years old is the age of sexual majority and eligibility for marriage

    He can argue whatever he wants, it is irrelevant unless he is qualified. First off, sexual maturity is what is key here as stated by Prof. Nigosian (an Armenian Christian minister and historian of Islam):
    “It was not uncommon at one time for children to be married even before they reached puberty, though they were not permitted to cohabit until they were at least sexually mature.”
    Islam: Its History, Teaching, and Practices

    Currently, most Muslim countries have laws that raise the age of when a marriage is legally permitted. These rules also have the backing of the Muslim scholars. Some places like Yemen, Mauritania and others still allow marriage very young – at puberty – and have the backing of the Muslim scholars. This is a cultural prerogative; which is why the Ottomans had already raised their age to 15 (look at that table again) when most states in America were still allowing it at 10.

    religion often being summed up as “Medieval.”

    As I stated to another on these forums, ‘Medieval’ is a pejorative in European cultures due to their experience – this is quite understandable. It is not the case with Muslims. The vast majority of the scholars I quote from are indeed medieval scholars; their depth of understanding and humanity is something that is deplorably lacking in modern-day Muslims. I’ll take Medieval over Post-Modern any day.

    he’d have nothing in his Holy Book to back his practice

    Neither would he have anything in his Holy Book to interdict it – nor even to interdict having sex with someone before puberty (again, look at those age of consent laws – going from late 1800s back to Medieval times – using an arbitrary age of 10 – do you really think all those girls had bled):
    “It needs to be remembered that many Medieval widows were not old, Important heiresses were often married between the ages of 5 and 10 and might find themselves widowed while still in their teens.”
    Medieval Miscellany – published by McGill Univ. Press

    By the way, Massachusetts and Kanasas allow 12 year olds to get married with parental consent (so your ancestor may simply have to cross the right border):
    http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html

    At least we have that rule (the Prophet [pbuh] married his young wife at 6 – but waited to cohabit until she was older) – as a Muslim scholar once explained; Islam actually raised the age of marriage in many pre-modern societies – a thought that should give us pause.

    It’s not about ‘chits’ bro, it’s about coherency, consistency and principle.

    Peace and much respect for being courteous in your reply – that is heads and tails above the invective I’ve had to deal with from others.

  165. @another fred

    It’s a big, foolish mistake – trying to explain events by interpreting religious texts and analyzing religious dogmas. Of any religion. The texts don’t mean a thing; they could as well read ‘blah-blah-blah’.

    The point is to unite the population (the tribe, originally), and to establish an authority, enforced by omniscient and omnipotent supernatural being, or beings. To unite, to control, to motivate.
     
    That seems a bit self contradictory, if the point is to establish and enforce an authority (agreed), then how can it be a mistake to analyze the texts used to "establish and enforce"?

    If you mean that the supernatural content of the texts can be neglected, that is a fair point to argue, but the social aspects of the texts are essential to the culture.

    if the point is to establish and enforce an authority (agreed), then how can it be a mistake to analyze the texts used to “establish and enforce”?

    Because it’s a bunch of stories, and their only message is ‘obey’, ‘don’t question authorities’, like in that Carpenter’s movie. What’s to analyze?

    the social aspects of the texts are essential to the culture

    There are so many words in those books that anything can be spun and justified. Priests form the culture, not texts. The same texts used by both Catholics and Protestants, by the Amish and by the LRA in Uganda, creating completely different cultures.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Mao Cheng Ji - Chinese I presume? There is no reason for you to comment on Caucasian/European Christianity. You are Asian. You do not belong. You can only comment on Asian Christianity. Or practice Chinese/Asian belief systems.
  166. @Talha
    Hey attila,

    the USA is better off without Somalis
     
    Cool - pssst, talking to the wrong guy, I didn't invite them.

    you are a Muslim?
     
    You got me!

    employing taqiyya
     
    LOL! Lady, you have no idea who you are talking to. Any of the regular UNZ people can vouch for my consistency. Or I may be saying 'peace' because I actually mean it.

    you are a Christian heretic
     
    You mean the old school theory floated by John of Damascus? The 'Heresy of the Ishmaelites'?
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    It's a rational theory; it was copied over from Christianity - that explains the similarities. Another rational theory for the similarities is that it was sent from the same Divine source in order to fix what the Christians and others made mistakes on; which is what it claims. Both seem quite rational conclusions to me.


    who follows a pedophile
     
    Meh - see my reply to Svigor.

    are you Asian/black
     
    From Pakistan originally, yes.

    I am a Caucasian Christian woman
     
    I am married to a Caucasian female convert of Swedish stock - are you trying to impress me? Technically, I have three spots open, but my teachers have said an emphatic no to polygamy for any of their students.

    you are inferior to me
     
    Correct - in a bikini contest, my scores would be well in the negative double digits. But, by all means preach your version of racially-superior Christianity and then wonder why you are shedding numbers and why we are buying out empty churches.

    you cannot be a part of the Caucasian/European Christian Europagan West
     
    OK - when the government officially sends me a notice that revokes my right to stay, I promise I won't fight. What about my kids, they are White (well 50%) - they definitely look White.

    You and the places whence you come are low IQ/evolutionary catastrophes
     
    Yet somehow they allowed me to sneak into the GATE program in my youth in California - suckerzzz! And somehow all the High IQ nations haven't got the memo that they better get their population birth rates out of free fall - that seems cogently fit in an evolutionary sense - I think?

    their defense
     
    They don't need me to defend them; I've interacted with them before, they are intelligent men. Perhaps they are simply staying silent on a topic of which they don't have a particular expertise - that, in and of itself, connotes intelligence and self-control.

    tell me if you are Asian/black/Muslim
     
    Here you go; I am a Muslim of Pakistani origin who follows the Sunni Hanafi school of jurisprudence and the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi school of spiritual purification and I have been studying at the feet of scholars from both these oceans for over a decade - enough info?

    I can continue to prove you wrong
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YVTksxZMOA

    Peace.

    Hey, Talha. So you are low IQ degenerate Asian. You married a degenerate Swedish woman.

    You are a Christian heretic. But I would not accept you because you are an Asian so that’s moot.

    You have offspring who are now absorbed into the Pakistani world so there will be no degeneration into the European gene pool.

    I hope you don’t live in the West. There is no reason for you to be here. Pakistan awaits you.

  167. @Svigor
    Talha, I respect you, you seem like a good person, and you conduct yourself with dignity, as far as I have seen. And I'm honestly not trying to tear down your religion. I just have an extremely low tolerance for BS. I call a spade a spade.

    Svigor you sound like a cuck. Tearing down Islam is what you should be working on.

  168. @Talha

    I did not “assume” it, Baghdadi claimed it, and thousands followed.
     
    This actually is a massive problem in our Ummah; this is a legitimate point. We are having a crisis among the Muslims. People are not listening to the qualified scholarship and they are following either their own opinions or the ignorant/unqualified (aka keyboard Muftis). Or janitors-turned-mufti:
    “By the time Benyettou was 22, Filiu writes, he was spending his time perusing jihadi websites and dressing in garb that primarily only Muslim preachers wore. When the mosque he belonged to expelled him, he joined another; it was there, The Washington Post says, that he worked as a janitor and met Cherif Kouachi.”
    “Benyettou operated in the margins of the religious community, defying the older imams and scorning their speeches,” Filiu writes. Benyettou, whom followers called Abu Abdallah, Filiu adds, “built up his own brand of Salafi-esque preaching, far from any established guidance, with a strong emphasis on jihad.”
    http://www.newsweek.com/meet-farid-benyettou-man-who-trained-paris-attack-suspect-cherif-kouachi-298028

    This is an acknowledged problem and we absolutely need to address this among our people - that is for sure.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77QODDURVMg

    “Verily, God does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but rather he takes away knowledge with the death of the scholars until he leaves no scholar behind and the people turn to the ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to give religious judgments without knowledge, thus they are led astray and lead others astray.” - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    This actually is a massive problem in our Ummah; this is a legitimate point.

    I appreciate your candor. I believe the “massive problem” is part of what has set a collision course between Islam and the West (formerly Christendom).

    This is not to lay blame at the feet of all Muslims, nor to exonerate the West, we are all but men, behaving as men, but I get frustrated a bit with people who deny the reality.

    Just to be clear, I expect the West to continue to push against the jihadis (in response to perceived provocations) and I expect this to create solidarity and resistance within a larger and larger part of the Ummah (in response to perceived injustice). Much blood will be shed.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey AF,

    I get frustrated a bit with people who deny the reality.
     
    Ditto - I can't stand it from both sides.

    Much blood will be shed.
     
    Deescalation is a lost art.

    Peace.
  169. @Mao Cheng Ji

    if the point is to establish and enforce an authority (agreed), then how can it be a mistake to analyze the texts used to “establish and enforce”?
     
    Because it's a bunch of stories, and their only message is 'obey', 'don't question authorities', like in that Carpenter's movie. What's to analyze?

    the social aspects of the texts are essential to the culture
     
    There are so many words in those books that anything can be spun and justified. Priests form the culture, not texts. The same texts used by both Catholics and Protestants, by the Amish and by the LRA in Uganda, creating completely different cultures.

    Mao Cheng Ji – Chinese I presume? There is no reason for you to comment on Caucasian/European Christianity. You are Asian. You do not belong. You can only comment on Asian Christianity. Or practice Chinese/Asian belief systems.

  170. It’s a big, foolish mistake – trying to explain events by interpreting religious texts and analyzing religious dogmas. Of any religion. The texts don’t mean a thing; they could as well read ‘blah-blah-blah’.

    I don’t agree. This is a common projection from atheists and agnostics and secular types (“they can’t possibly take that nonsense seriously,” etc.), but I don’t think it obtains. I think the Scripture of a religion reinforces and enshrines behavior. Furthermore, it serves to fortify a culture against change.

    “We must change.”

    “But The Great One did it this way.”

    “We must change, adapt.”

    “You are asking me to forsake my religion. Here, have an IED.”

    A great many obviously take Islam seriously, at least as a matter of law. (And I’m not sure what they would take seriously, if that were to end.). Saying it doesn’t matter how they read is like saying it doesn’t matter how the law reads.

    Talha, you are comparing The Islamic Model to historical norms, as if I were comparing it to current norms. I am not. I am comparing The Islamic Model to the Christian Model, relating them both back to current norms, and querying the viability of each in regard to those norms.

    The Islamic Model does not fare well.

    Correct, but it was halal in Christendom for centuries too.

    It is not defensible, per se, because of anything Christ did. One cannot say, “Christ kept slaves, thus, it will always be a part of Christianity, blessed by the most Holy who has ever lived, the Earthly model of our faith.” On the contrary, one cannot argue that keeping slaves is part of a Christ-like life.

    Slavery is in principle permitted, but as Mufti Taqi Uthmani (former Grand Mufti of Pakistan) stated:

    Yes, but he’s just a man. Mohammed is The Model. And Mohammed kept slaves. Who is some Mufti, compared to The Prophet? No one, that’s who.

    Look, I don’t take anyone seriously who won’t step up and denounce all of the previous generations of Europeans and Christians who thought it was fine to sleep with a woman once she started bleeding as pedophiles. It is rank hypocrisy and posturing. So, were they all pedophiles or enablers – it is a yes or no question? And how the hell did men like Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin and Luther completely miss that – wow!

    Well, if you insist…I will.

    After you denounce the Prophet for doing it.

    All the rest of what you wrote is squid-ink. I am not talking about Muslim cultures, or Muslim countries. All of that is tangential.

    I am talking about The Prophet Mohammed, and Islam.

    Neither would he have anything in his Holy Book to interdict it

    Which is far less in support of it than the Koran, which blesses it.

    Peace and much respect for being courteous in your reply – that is heads and tails above the invective I’ve had to deal with from others.

    NP. Don’t get too used to it. I am a capricious and moody fellow. I may be hurling invective tomorrow. :)

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Svigor,

    I am comparing The Islamic Model to the Christian Model
     
    So am I - the Christian Model was just as well defined by men like Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, etc. - not by anonymous posters on the Internet. Why should I take your assumption for granted that all of them got fundamental things wrong while the Christians of this century have not? And if they did get things so fundamentally wrong; views on the morality of slavery, capital punishment for blasphemy, etc. - what confidence does one have in any coherence in that tradition?

    On the contrary, one cannot argue that keeping slaves is part of a Christ-like life.
     
    Neither is marriage neither is running a government or a navy. The problem is, he knew it was happening and never, ever condemned it. He (according to Christians) told slaves to obey their masters. According to our principles, if an emissary of God witnesses something immoral in their society, they are obligated to refute or denounce it because that is the reason why they are sent - otherwise it is a breach of their trust and they are never untrustworthy. The silence of an emissary of God in the presence of an act is evidence of its permissibility. Slavery is permissible - not necessary - emancipation is better and highly rewarded; this has been the position of Islam since inception.

    Christianity allowed it, doesn't allow it now, and may possibly allow it in the future - what guarantee do you have that it won't?

    And Mohammed kept slaves.
     
    Yes and he emancipated slaves - square the circle for me; which one is mustahab (recommended), which one is mubah (merely permissible)? No peeking at our texts now for answers.

    Who is some Mufti, compared to The Prophet? No one, that’s who.
     
    Like Ace, you have basically summed up the viewpoint of Daesh and herein lies the fundamental problem. The Prophet (pbuh) is no longer here, nor will there be any new revelation. All we have is what source texts there are (which in and of themselves are part of and preserved by the scholars of the same tradition - where do you think the collections of Bukhari and Muslim and Ibn Majah came from - outer space?). Since the Prophet (pbuh) cannot be asked directly, these must needs be interpreted to figure out what is demanded of us - that is no doubt. The question is; who is doing the interpretation? For you, it is fine that some random person from Daesh goes into the texts and pulls out the idea that Muslims can simply revive slavery after it has been eradicated and in contradiction to the pact we have with non-Muslims. Mufti Taqi Uthmani has been studying this religion for over five decades, he sits on the top international councils of Muslim scholars. Why is it that he concludes this with regard to the halting of slavery:
    "As for the question of whether this pact [to prohibit slavery] is allowed, I have not seen its ruling explicitly in [the writings of] the early scholars, and it is apparent that it is permissible because taking slaves is not something obligatory, rather it is an option from four options, and the option therein is for the Imam. And it is apparent from the texts on the virtue of emancipation and other [texts] that freedom is more desirable in the Islamic Shari‘ah [than slavery], so there is no harm in making such a pact, so long as other nations conform to it and do not violate it."

    While Daesh is trying to revive it - and you think they are correct? I'm not even mentioning great scholars like Shaykh Bin Bayyah, the late Shaykh Ramadan Bouti, etc. who denounced Daesh for reviving the practice. Do you think they are not aware of the verses and hadith on the subject? I'm all ears, give me a reason why the most senior Islamic scholars of the world are wrong and you are right.

    Actually don't waste your time - that was mostly rhetorical. Your voice is actually irrelevant in the debate since it is our religion and we define its parameters and this is a completely internal matter. Nobody (that means all of us including Daesh with who we are at war) actually listens to non-Muslim voices on these things since the tradition is insulated from their input. Sorry. :)

    After you denounce the Prophet for doing it.
     
    I'm not denouncing anybody, if anything our tradition actually confirms that your ancestors were not degenerates (assuming they were delaying sex until onset of puberty) - whether you choose to condemn them or not. I was asking you to stick to your principles. I'm not obligated to condemn neither side by my principles.

    If - according to you - all of Christendom and Europe was full of child molesters and enablers for the lion's share of its history until the 20th century - fine with me. Again, deal with the consequences on the Day of Judgement.

    All of that is tangential.
     
    Only because you don't understand the relationship of 'urf to the Shariah.

    I am talking about The Prophet Mohammed, and Islam.
     
    So am I; I think my points are not hitting their mark. I wrote quite a bit so I hope others at least will get what I'm talking about.

    Which is far less in support
     
    There is no support or negation - the Bible is completely silent on the matter. I'm sorry, that is the fact. You can quote verses mentioning 'woman' all you want, but that is defined lexically by what it meant to the people hearing it - not something that is redefined 19 centuries later.

    the Koran, which blesses it
     
    Uh no - the rules for age of marriage are all detailed through hadith actually.

    I may be hurling invective tomorrow.
     
    No problem, once that starts flying, I will shut down and withdraw from the conversation. My teachers have taught me to to courteous and civil - but not a punching bag.

    Peace.
  171. @Wizard of Oz
    Your somewhat idiosyncratic approach to prose construction leaves the connection you intend between your last two sentences to be guessed at.

    As an IQ expert do you consider that not being able to handle the truth is a cognitive deficiency? Always? Sometimes? In JS's case? Depending on some unstated factor? Or are you referring only to an emotional syndrome? Genetically based? Correlated with IQ? Causally conmected to IQ measured cognitive function?

    There, no more complaints please of failure to reply from this poor Wizard apprentice (contributions to fare to Kansas accepted gratefully even if the Kansas connection is just an opportunistic add-on courtesy of some of the older? UR commenters)

    You are a cuck. Can’t take a stand.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I am not sure that you take stands because that requires logical consistency which is hard to determine in your prose. You certainly don't know nearly enough about me to know whether and in what causes and in what manner I take stands.

    If I were to take (scil. express) stands that you would understand on matters you deal with I would not enjoy much intellectual satisfaction but would be extremely offensive to you.
  172. Imam Shafi’i (ra) was one of our greatest scholars – a man of amazing erudition and piety and an ocean of knowledge who has one of our surviving juristic schools named after him.

    Why is that at all relevant?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMWVRYBCAAEia6u.jpg

  173. @another fred

    This actually is a massive problem in our Ummah; this is a legitimate point.
     
    I appreciate your candor. I believe the "massive problem" is part of what has set a collision course between Islam and the West (formerly Christendom).

    This is not to lay blame at the feet of all Muslims, nor to exonerate the West, we are all but men, behaving as men, but I get frustrated a bit with people who deny the reality.

    Just to be clear, I expect the West to continue to push against the jihadis (in response to perceived provocations) and I expect this to create solidarity and resistance within a larger and larger part of the Ummah (in response to perceived injustice). Much blood will be shed.

    Hey AF,

    I get frustrated a bit with people who deny the reality.

    Ditto – I can’t stand it from both sides.

    Much blood will be shed.

    Deescalation is a lost art.

    Peace.

  174. @Talha
    Hey Greasy,

    The world has never seen anything like ISIS before.
     
    We have actually; Khawarij are one (the OG - they did takfir of and killed the Companions - that is nuts!!!), Qarmatis are another (they stole the black stone and destroyed the Kaaba and completely stopped the Hajj by murdering pilgrims for years) and the Almohads were also very close (before they lost their zealotry and learned to chill out), and others.

    I would think you would know about the Almohads - what do you think Rambam was doing in Egypt instead of his native Spain?

    Extremism is a problem; and it lifts its ugly head every few centuries among the Muslims, then it either gets militarily defeated or dies down on its own. This is a known bug in the system (as opposed to feature) and the phenomenon was prophesied as such and warned about. With any people who take their religion seriously, this is a recurring problem and it can never be completely eradicated. The West (which had its own extremist problem when people took religion seriously) seemed to have eradicated it by completely defanging its religious tradition and now it is mostly a hobby or not taken seriously or, even worse considered irrelevant. Having adopted much of Left-liberal discourse, it has very little in its arsenal to combat it. So it has to stand by twirling thumbs while people piss on the cross in public (literally or metaphorically).

    As a Muslim, watching history unfold and seeing the direction the West is going, I'll keep the tradition, warts and all.

    Peace.

    We have actually; Khawarij are one (the OG – they did takfir of and killed the Companions – that is nuts!!!), Qarmatis are another (they stole the black stone and destroyed the Kaaba and completely stopped the Hajj by murdering pilgrims for years) and the Almohads were also very close (before they lost their zealotry and learned to chill out), and others.

    Weren’t all those groups more like Al Qaeda than ISIS?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Greasy,

    No - once you start calling the cousin of the Prophet (pbuh) an unbeliever or killing unarmed pilgrims - you are in super-star extremist status - you are setting a very high bar that only few groups can reach. Al-Qaeda is still swinging in welter or middleweight. Daesh is swinging with the big boys.

    Peace.

  175. @Svigor

    It is people who are intolerant, not religions. We can see this intolerance even in the comments of liberals…”basket of deplorable” anyone. And even the threads here are full of people so full of themselves and their favorite ideologies that they’ll happily bash Muslims without even having lived with them.
     
    I have opinions on the Moon landings, despite not having been on the Moon to witness the event.

    But that opinion does not extend to what it felt like to be on the moon. That only Armstrong and the rest of his colleagues can testify to.

  176. @Talha
    Hey Svigor,

    I'll play...


    Did Mohammed, or did he not, engage in raids for plunder?
     
    Correct - razzia raiding was the predominate mode of warfare among Arab tribes of the Hejaz:
    The excellent book ‘Armies of Muslim Conquest’ by Prof. David Nicolle has the very first sentence under the chapter called “The Prophet’s First Warriors” as:
    “Arabian warfare was based on different principles from that of their larger neighbors, razzia raiding being the most common tactic.”

    Closest practice Western militaries have fielded is that of privateering:
    “European governments regularly issued documents known as Letters of Marque and Reprisal to legitimize privately outfitted men-of-war. In a tradition dating back to the Middle Ages, under highly regulated conditions, these documents authorized private parties to attack enemy vessels. Without the documentation, these same activities were considered acts of piracy and subject to prosecution. If a privateer captured an enemy ship (known as a prize), an admiralty prize court had to approve the seizure. Then, the proceeds from the sale of the prize and its cargo were shared among the owners and crew of the privateer according to a pre-arranged contract.…A Privateer Commission was issued to vessels, called privateers or cruisers, whose primary objective was to disrupt enemy shipping. The ideal target was an unarmed, or lightly armed, commercial ship.”
    https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html

    If the charge is that he lived fat off the money - nonsense - all the sources show he lived a spartan life, barely ever eating meat and dying in debt to someone for a sack of wheat - even while he had the entire Arabian peninsula under his control.


    Did he, or did he not, execute prisoners?
     
    Correct - or ransomed them, or traded them in prisoner swaps, or forgave them, depending on circumstance. Your assumption is that we must necessarily execute prisoners in violation of current war conventions (of which Muslim nations are a party) - please cite evidence from our scholars (not your interpretation of our texts) saying so.

    Did he, or did he not, have people put to death for things that no modern civilization has people put to death for, anymore?
     
    Correct - the answer as to why is in the question itself if you look hard enough.

    Did he, or did he not, own slaves?
     
    Correct - and sometimes emancipated them. Your assumption is that we must necessarily have slavery in our societies - please cite evidence from our scholars (not your interpretation of our texts) saying so.

    Did he, or did he not, lay down with children?
     
    Incorrect - the Lady Aisha (ra) - a jurist of the highest rank from the first generation - by her own admission had reached biological adulthood at nine (when she consumated marriage), which is a reflection of the realities of early menstruation of the women of her time and locality:
    “When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman.” – reported in Tirmidhi

    This is not unknown about menarche - onset of menstruation:
    “… it can happen as early as age 9 or as late as 15…”
    http://www.webmd.com/children/tc/menarche-topic-overview

    Earlier is possible, but quite abnormal:
    "We conclude that signs of puberty in 6- to 8-year-old girls should not be considered normal or benign."
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/1/47

    Biological adulthood (with the onset of puberty) is the only universal benchmark one can use to determine when a human becomes an adult (everything else is subject to arbitrary cultural or historic norms):
    “Biologically, an adult is a human being or other organism that has reached sexual maturity.”
    Adolescence: Psychology, Human development

    Really, the only societies where this even applies are parts of the Sahel region or rural parts of the Arabian peninsula. Most Muslim societies marry women in the upper teens (at the earliest) - 15 and after.

    And frankly, we don't really care if others think they can arbitrarily define adulthood at a given age; 15, 18, 21 - and then judge all of humanity going backwards. Especially when their own ancestors or coreligionists didn't real have a problem with it (or even younger ages):
    "Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine. Agnes's age, then, was not unusual, especially as it was customary for young engaged couples in Constantinople to be brought up together in the house of the socially superior partner.[[4]]"
    http://www.roman-emperors.org/aggiefran.htm

    "If two people were married and had sex, no matter what their age, no crime was committed because a woman was her husband’s property."
    Sex and Society, Volume 1: Age of Consent

    Even the majority of the states in the union (until the advent of the 20th century) had ages of consent clocking at 10 years old, the rest had 12 - Delware said OK to 7:
    http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/website-reviews/230?section=primarysources&source=24

    I will give you credit for consistency though if you are willing to call out all previous Christian, European and American societies for centuries before the rules were changed as pedophiles, child-molesters or at least enablers. Of course, you may have to face them on the Day of Judgement for calumny - but it's your afterlife, not mine.

    Peace.

    Talha, although I would disagree with some of your points, but do not consider it important to do so, since the questions were of a frivolous nature, and not asked, IMO, with the honest nature of enquiry. Your answers will have to do for now for the gentleman.

    However, one thing I would like to give my opinion on is the age of Aisha at marriage. There is considerable debate within the Islamic scholars on this point, and I don’t believe the case is as open and shut as you say. The main issue is that no one knows with hundred per cent surety the year of her birth. The first person who suggested her age could’ve been 9 was Hasan Basri. however many scholars refute his evidence on the grounds that when he said this he was already in old age and his mental faculties were failing him. unfortunately his opinion was picked up eagerly by the anti Muslim brigade.

    Many other scholars debate his calculation. The work I’ve seen suggests Aisha was likely to be between 18 and 20. The age of 15 has also been mentioned in some calculations. This vagueness is a result of various extrapolations done by scholars as to her likely age when correlated with important Islamic events, or even personal events of Aisha’s life. I’d suggest you do a deeper reading. Unfortunately I can’t pass the links or sources since they are not at hand.

    • Replies: @MEexpert
    Here is a link.

    http://www.dawn.com/news/696084/of-aishas-age-at-marriage

     

    The author Nilofar Ahmad in this article in DAWN, Karachi shows that her age was about 21 years.

    Many authentic hadiths also show that Hisham’s narration is incongruous with several historical facts about the Prophet’s life, on which there is consensus. With reference to scholars such as Umar Ahmed Usmani, Hakim Niaz Ahmed and Habibur Rehman Kandhulvi, I would like to present some arguments in favour of the fact that Hazrat Aisha was at least 18 years old when her nikah was performed and at least 21 when she moved into the Prophet’s house to live with him.
     
    , @Talha
    Hey raphee,

    As with so many things in the religion, there are differences of opinion. I have seen these other numbers like 12 or early teens - these are very old school opinions (minority ones, but still from the tradition). Stuff like 18 and 20 is when I start rolling my eyes. It's like post-modern man says 'jump' and Muslims say 'how high'?

    The problem is, why did everyone miss that for centuries until magically our numbers coincide with the numbers acceptable in Western countries. Do you really think anybody buys that? And you do realize we wouldn't be having this conversation 120 years ago. You are never going to convince people who insist that there has been a linear progress of man on the moral front and that they can stand in judgement of all past generations based on their current norms - which by the way keep changing (ie. acceptance of gay marriage).

    I personally think it is a slippery slope, which is why I like sticking to the traditional scholarship since it just seems to have the most coherence, but that is just me.

    Here is a great talk by Prof. Jonathan Brown on this topic and why nobody, nobody even brought up her age in the West until 1905:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE_zypf8DAU

    Peace.
  177. @raphee
    Talha, although I would disagree with some of your points, but do not consider it important to do so, since the questions were of a frivolous nature, and not asked, IMO, with the honest nature of enquiry. Your answers will have to do for now for the gentleman.

    However, one thing I would like to give my opinion on is the age of Aisha at marriage. There is considerable debate within the Islamic scholars on this point, and I don't believe the case is as open and shut as you say. The main issue is that no one knows with hundred per cent surety the year of her birth. The first person who suggested her age could've been 9 was Hasan Basri. however many scholars refute his evidence on the grounds that when he said this he was already in old age and his mental faculties were failing him. unfortunately his opinion was picked up eagerly by the anti Muslim brigade.

    Many other scholars debate his calculation. The work I've seen suggests Aisha was likely to be between 18 and 20. The age of 15 has also been mentioned in some calculations. This vagueness is a result of various extrapolations done by scholars as to her likely age when correlated with important Islamic events, or even personal events of Aisha's life. I'd suggest you do a deeper reading. Unfortunately I can't pass the links or sources since they are not at hand.

    Here is a link.

    http://www.dawn.com/news/696084/of-aishas-age-at-marriage

    The author Nilofar Ahmad in this article in DAWN, Karachi shows that her age was about 21 years.

    Many authentic hadiths also show that Hisham’s narration is incongruous with several historical facts about the Prophet’s life, on which there is consensus. With reference to scholars such as Umar Ahmed Usmani, Hakim Niaz Ahmed and Habibur Rehman Kandhulvi, I would like to present some arguments in favour of the fact that Hazrat Aisha was at least 18 years old when her nikah was performed and at least 21 when she moved into the Prophet’s house to live with him.

  178. Svigor you sound like a cuck. Tearing down Islam is what you should be working on.

    I have other fish to fry.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    My cuck point is proven once again.
    , @Ron Unz


    Svigor you sound like a cuck. Tearing down Islam is what you should be working on.
     
    I have other fish to fry.
     
    I think Svigor's been a hard-core WN for at least something like 15 years, spending his days at Stormfront and places like that. And I know I've seen him very frequently commenting on Steve Sailer's blog for at least a dozen years. He's also sometimes accused Jared Taylor of running a "kiddie pool" and censoring anything controversial.

    But I noticed a couple of days ago, he said he was really getting annoyed at the ferocious extent of the "anti-Semitism" exhibited by many of the commenters here. And now he's been denounced as a "cuck" for being insufficently "Islamophobic."

    I must say that my small webzine has really attracted a remarkable group of energetic participants. Maybe some political sociologistics should use it as an ideological research database.
  179. I’d rather let Zionists do their own dirty work.

    But that opinion does not extend to what it felt like to be on the moon. That only Armstrong and the rest of his colleagues can testify to.

    I’ll take their word for it.

  180. @Wizard of Oz
    Having found the origin of the quote that I criticised in my immediately preceding comment replying to Svigor I see that I may have been unfair to your emphasis because of course much of the problem of (undesirable) intolerance is individual. However you do say "not religions" and in the light of your agreeing that Islam needs a Reformation that is clearly a misstatement of your position.

    It is Interesting how long it took for the Reformation to produce tolerance in Christianity - even partially with side glances at those tribal Micks/Prots and abortions formally criminalised etc . Like democracy a tolerant Islam is probably going to require prosperity widely spread to be consistent with comfortable civilised life. Overpopulation/excessive fertility, especially amongst the uneducated, remains perhaps the greatest threat to our grandchildren enjoying a comfortable world which hasn't destroyed too much that is good (off-beat question: will it prove easier to restore Palmyra's ISIS destroyed heritage in 2060 or to reproduce a dinosaur?).

    It is good to see this reply from you. After reading your reply to svigor I did have to pause and try to understand your intent, but frankly gave up.

    What i was implying was that all religions and all ideologies, Islam, Christianity, democracy, capitalism, communism et al, provide enough ammunition within their respective charters that any individual, once he puts his mind to it, can twist and misuse it to achieve any objectives. All he needs is the good luck of a certain set of circumstances–time, place, history– to create the perfect storm for his propaganda to be effective within a critical mass of people. This is not about the superiority of one religion over the other. Each civilization has its day and it’s fall. History is ample evidence of that.

    The particular problem with religions is that unlike modern day theories of capitalism or democracy , religions have a much longer history; even worse their content is moralistic, or at the least includes intangibles, that are far less malleable to empirical testing. Hence not only historically but even in modern times different sects use the same scripture to arrive at different results. Sometimes these varying interpretations have been used to achieve political objectives instead of for intellectual discourse.

    I hope this explains my position and statement better. Of course the subject is worthy of a treatise, but this should suffice.

    As to Islamic Reformation, I would agree that prosperity is important. Even more important for me is that Muslims especially the youth get educated, have hopes of a better tomorrow, and they have freedom, political, intellectual, and material. It is when this hope comes alive amongst Muslims that ISIS and AlQaeda will die their death, for their tools of recruitment wouldve disappeared.

    Side note… Palmyra will rise again. But dinosaurs i love also.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I have a picture of us meeting enjoyably on a Harvard-Yale-Oxford-Cambridge Cruise of the eastern Med for elderly classicists manqué and you mildly reproving me for cruelly nitpicking questions to our lecturers who have enjoyed too well the night before the expensive wines we have paid for.

    I am sorry I didn't even make my nitpick in the reply to svigor clear. My logical or perhaps just verbal point was that we wouldn't have qualms about saying one religion was more tolerant than another so it should surely follow that it was OK to say that a religion was intolerant. I think that nit is now meticulously picked. (Question: is a properly picked nit to be regarded as dead or as fit for a full series of performances? I think I must ask John Derbyshire for a view on that, perhaps in limerick form...."A lively young [old] chap who picked nits..." Oh dear I don't need a rhyming dictionary to see where JD or the late great Robert Conquest might take this).

  181. If one were to live a Christ-like life in today’s world, the worst that can be said is that one might be thought delusional (belief in miracles, etc.), and serve a short stint in jail (whipping money-changers).

    If one were to live a Mohammed-like life, one would be put to death by the state, in any civilized country, or live on the “most wanted” list, as public enemy #1 (most Muslim countries included). In most civilized countries, one would be vilified as a pedophile, a bigamist, an armed robber, a slaver, and a murderer. You could say that Mohammed lived according to the rules of his time, but that doesn’t make for much of a religion.

    I suppose that’s what I’m getting at, not that I’ve been unclear up to now: Christ was an all-round pretty swell guy, for the most part, by modern standards. Mohammed was a very bad man, by modern standards. We can talk “standards of their time” until we’re blue in the face, but we live in the present, not the past. The two Models are very, very different.

  182. @anon
    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.

    Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy. Note that there has NEVER been a single Arab democratic country in history.

    Arabs are not the only Muslims.

    Please define what you think democracy is? US is not considered a democracy. It is a republic. Israel is considered a democracy but it does not practice democracy rules. It does not even have a constitution and makes up laws as it goes along outlawing all the rights for the minority palestinians. If you define democracy where people vote, then there are many Muslim countries where people vote and are considered democratic. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Iran are some. You may call Iran theocratic but there are direct elections for the President (without electoral college) and the parliament.

  183. @Talha
    Hey Ace,

    Qur'an says a lot of things so do hadith. The jihadis are unqualified to interpret it; that you or they think they are is completely irrelevant because you are also unqualified to judge who is qualified.

    Which is why they are hunting down and eliminating those that are qualified:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvNupoSw_u8

    Maybe the Qur'an actually says to eliminate those who understand it best - hmmmm?

    Or maybe these guys really are just ignorant gun-toting 20 year olds.

    Peace.

    Here are some authoritative Islamic texts, Talha, at least I think the Koran and Bukhari are authoritative:

    K 9.123: “Fight the unbelievers around you and let them find harshness in you”.

    K 4:84: “Fight in Allah’s Cause. Incite the believers to fight with you.”

    K 2:216: “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), even if you dislike it.”

    K 47:4: “Smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding them.”

    K 8.12: “Smite infidels on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

    K 48:28-29: “It is He that has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith, so that he may exalt it above all religions. Sufficient is God as a witness. Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.”

    K 8:38-39: “Tell the unbelievers that if they mend their ways their past shall be forgiven; but if they persist in sin, let them reflect upon the fate of bygone nations. Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.”

    Bukhari:V4B52N220: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”

    Now maybe I just sleep the sleep of the unqualified but that seems like some eminently clear, strong medicine from the Great Arab Father of Fathers to the effect that infidels are scum and deserve to die.

    Muslim behavior around the world certainly is consistent with that view and the voices of more moderate Muslims are muted to say the least. Those one hears about occasionally usually come with accompanying tales of homicidal retaliation that are wildly popular. (I added that bit about being wildly popular. Completely unjustified, I know.)

    Suliman Bashear, that professor at the University of Nablus who opined to his class that Islam didn’t emerge “fully formed from the mouth of the Prophet” became airborne for a short while thanks to his students who weren’t ignorant 20-y-o jihadis, thank you very munch. I’m sure they were severely punished. (Btw, it’s not the 20-year-olds who are calling the shots in Libya, Iraq, and Syria but their superiors, of course, so let’s not say the killings they carry out are the result of religious interpretations indulged in by children. The kiddies do what they’re told to do.)

    Shahbaz Bhatti and Salmaan Taseer (both deceased per second link) and Prof. Bashear seem(ed) like educated, informed, broadminded men with a good handle on some of the problems of Islamic doctrine (or perhaps simply problems caused by Islamic doctrine) but I suppose you would say they’re unqualified to comment on or criticize the Koran too.

    I don’t know what exactly those qualified-but-deceased imams in your YouTube video link said that set off the nutcases. Their exact teachings that got them killed would be instructive.

    I don’t categorically reject the notion that there are intelligent Koranic scholars who are voices of moderation and try to tamp down the fires of radicalism. I do, however, reject your notion that only “qualified” persons can interpret the Koran, hadiths, and whatever. The great Shia imam a-Sistani in Iraq publishes on his own website that infidels are najis, i.e., down there on the level of dogs, pigs, excrement, and dead bodies. For all I know that’s pure gold so far as what the Koran, etc., say about us filthy dog infidels but I, in the darkness of my unqualified soul, say that’s garbage, regardless. Vicious, in point of fact. As are the opening quotes I provided. Their meaning is clear.

    You don’t have to go to imam school to see that.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Ace,

    infidels are scum and deserve to die
     
    'Scum' is your word, but yes, they deserve to die when you are facing them on the battlefield - are we really supposed to be ashamed of this? The question is, when is fighting permitted and in what manner - that is what people like Daesh don't seem to get.

    I don't know where you are getting your quotes but they leave out crucial info or specifically use incendiary words since someone without knowledge in Arabic can be fooled. I'll give a couple of examples:
    8:12 - Why don't they mention this was a command to the angels at the Battle of Badr and not a general prescription?
    48:29 - Why do they use the incendiary word 'ruthless' when no lexical translation to 'ruthless' exists from (اشدّاء) - it should be 'hard' or 'tough'; please prove me wrong
    The Bukhari hadith - ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’ is used to make it seem that we are supposed to be terrorists - when the word (رعب) connotes a horror, panic, fear which is what God casts into the hearts of those who fight against His emissaries so they give up without a fight

    Of course you left out this verse (60:8):
    "Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly."

    But even that is really of little consequence (because you'll just go to wikiislam or some other site to grab more info) as I'm about to explain in a bit, but first...


    they’re unqualified to comment on or criticize the Koran too
     
    They are unqualified, sorry. But you do know the killer of Taseer was executed and it was confirmed by the former Grand Mufti of Pakistan?

    that set off the nutcases
     
    Did you watch the video? They completely misinterpreted his words based on a typo in the text. And by they, I mean an Electrical Engineer who thought he was a qualified scholar:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_abd-al-Salam_Faraj

    I do, however, reject your notion that only “qualified” persons can interpret the Koran, hadiths, and whatever.
     
    Ah - we arrive at the meat of the matter. In one sentence you have basically summed up the opinion of Daesh and their followers. The fact that both you and them come to the same conclusions speaks volumes. In fact, all this really tells me is that you would make an extremely dangerous Muslim at this point of your understanding.

    So convince me, why should we accept that anybody and their mother has the right to interpret these texts and throw away centuries of scholarship that state that it should only be in the hands of those who have met the qualifications under those who have met the qualifications under...

    Would any other ethical or legal framework accept this? Would any society accept that an electrical engineer or a burger-flipper that bought "Constitution for Dummies" should have a say in how the Constitution is interpreted?


    The great Shia imam a-Sistani
     
    If you want to crucify us based on a minority opinion go for it - it's an act of desperation as far as I'm concerned. In fact, a while ago I wrote these exact words to you - apparently you forgot:
    "The majority Sunni opinion (across the four schools) on this is that the term ‘najis’ refers to the state of the belief of the individual, meaning their beliefs of say atheism, polytheism, etc. NOT their physical being. "

    Peace.

  184. @Greasy William

    We have actually; Khawarij are one (the OG – they did takfir of and killed the Companions – that is nuts!!!), Qarmatis are another (they stole the black stone and destroyed the Kaaba and completely stopped the Hajj by murdering pilgrims for years) and the Almohads were also very close (before they lost their zealotry and learned to chill out), and others.
     
    Weren't all those groups more like Al Qaeda than ISIS?

    Hey Greasy,

    No – once you start calling the cousin of the Prophet (pbuh) an unbeliever or killing unarmed pilgrims – you are in super-star extremist status – you are setting a very high bar that only few groups can reach. Al-Qaeda is still swinging in welter or middleweight. Daesh is swinging with the big boys.

    Peace.

  185. @Svigor

    Svigor you sound like a cuck. Tearing down Islam is what you should be working on.
     
    I have other fish to fry.

    My cuck point is proven once again.

  186. @Diversity Heretic
    Turkey is probably the best example of the probably irresolvable conflict between Islam and representative government as presently practiced in western Europe and the U.S. Kemal Ataturk was a great man, but the ideas of even a great man can be flawed.

    I see no reason to admit any Muslims at all, save accredited diplomats of Muslim countries, and a few businessmen, students and tourists on short-term visas with regular reporting to the immigration authorities. They are, in a community of any number, fundamentally incompatible with the western European/white American way of life and system of government, and they offer no knowledge, skills and abilities that cannot be developed indigenously.

    “They are, in a community of any number, fundamentally incompatible with the western European/white American way of life and system of government, and they offer no knowledge, skills and abilities that cannot be developed indigenously.”

    You are so out of touch with reality. Are you just a parody of False News Stories?

    http://www.newsweek.com/do-muslims-easily-assimilate-american-society-509673

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I've lived in Paris, Toulouse and London and seen with my own eyes the results of large-scale Muslim immivasion. Muslim immivasion into the U.S. hasn't reached those levels but it's already bad enough (9/11, Orlando nightclub shooting, San Bernadino Christmas Party shooting ring any bells?). People who write MSM stories about Muslims superficially assimilating and the fools who believe them are the ones who are out of touch with reality. Rudyard Kipling put it so well years ago in his poem, The Stranger Within My Gates. One portion goes:

    The Stranger within my gates,
    He may be evil or good,
    But I cannot tell what powers control–
    What reasons sway his mood;
    Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
    Shall repossess his blood.
  187. @raphee
    Talha, although I would disagree with some of your points, but do not consider it important to do so, since the questions were of a frivolous nature, and not asked, IMO, with the honest nature of enquiry. Your answers will have to do for now for the gentleman.

    However, one thing I would like to give my opinion on is the age of Aisha at marriage. There is considerable debate within the Islamic scholars on this point, and I don't believe the case is as open and shut as you say. The main issue is that no one knows with hundred per cent surety the year of her birth. The first person who suggested her age could've been 9 was Hasan Basri. however many scholars refute his evidence on the grounds that when he said this he was already in old age and his mental faculties were failing him. unfortunately his opinion was picked up eagerly by the anti Muslim brigade.

    Many other scholars debate his calculation. The work I've seen suggests Aisha was likely to be between 18 and 20. The age of 15 has also been mentioned in some calculations. This vagueness is a result of various extrapolations done by scholars as to her likely age when correlated with important Islamic events, or even personal events of Aisha's life. I'd suggest you do a deeper reading. Unfortunately I can't pass the links or sources since they are not at hand.

    Hey raphee,

    As with so many things in the religion, there are differences of opinion. I have seen these other numbers like 12 or early teens – these are very old school opinions (minority ones, but still from the tradition). Stuff like 18 and 20 is when I start rolling my eyes. It’s like post-modern man says ‘jump’ and Muslims say ‘how high’?

    The problem is, why did everyone miss that for centuries until magically our numbers coincide with the numbers acceptable in Western countries. Do you really think anybody buys that? And you do realize we wouldn’t be having this conversation 120 years ago. You are never going to convince people who insist that there has been a linear progress of man on the moral front and that they can stand in judgement of all past generations based on their current norms – which by the way keep changing (ie. acceptance of gay marriage).

    I personally think it is a slippery slope, which is why I like sticking to the traditional scholarship since it just seems to have the most coherence, but that is just me.

    Here is a great talk by Prof. Jonathan Brown on this topic and why nobody, nobody even brought up her age in the West until 1905:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE_zypf8DAU

    Peace.

    • Replies: @raphee
    Talha, i am least interested in jumping high or low for someone else's wish. I have heard this particular talk of Jonathan Brown. I disagreed with him then, and I do so now. What I can do for you is post references.

    Further more, the discussions within Muslim scholars started many centuries earlier, as part of the intellectual discourse of that time within Muslims. Prof brown i know has a different perspective.

    I definitely agree that moral progress or regress is a relative issue, and must not be the influencer in a discussion of history and facts.

  188. @Talha
    Hey pelagic,

    'Anarchy' was the term the researcher used, not me. In the absence of a centralized government, most Westerners assume 'anarchy'. People who know better are quite aware that governance resolves back to the tribes as it did for centuries before the idea of the nation-state was introduced.

    I have a friend; a White convert who married a Somali woman. We were talking about a lot of these issues. People here think it is a given that an 18 year old cheerleader should have the same voice as a 65 year old Vietnam veteran. My friend and I talked about how completely insipid it is to introduce a system into a tribal society where the political voice/vote of an 18 year old woman counts the same as a 65 year old tribal elder. Not only is it insane, it is asking them to take all that makes them uniquely Somali, take a shotgun to its mouth and blow out its brains.

    Peace.

    “Not only is it insane…”

    Agreed. As a comparison, would you say that introducing a system such as Islam (because it is a system as you know, and not merely a religion) to Western societies is equally insane? And vice versa?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey pelagic,

    It is a religion - like all religions before it, it helped define the society including the government (even Zoroastranism and Buddhism did this) - that assumption of that relationship was perfunctory in the past. It is actually the common era that is the historic anomaly.

    Running the West under Somali tribalism is absolutely mad.

    Islam provides some general guidelines, basically it draws a picture and it is up to the various people to color it in as they wish (and try to stay within the lines). Many systems of government can run and be run relatively successfully under an Islamic rubric; republic (Indonesia), monarchy (Jordan), revolving monarchy (Malaysia), tribal confederacy (Somalia), matriarchal nomadic (Tuareg), even military dictatorship (Egypt - if people don't think one can be run well, they have never heard of the Bahri Mamluks). So introduction of Islam into a Western country would likely make it resemble more Indonesia or Turkey rather than the Tuareg.

    Western man needs to make a choice about where he wants to go because there seem to be certain systemic issues going on. If he wants to keep going this route, introducing Islamic reforms/suggestions are indeed foolhardy and likely going to make matters worse very quickly. If he wants to re-evaluate which direction he wants to go, there are a few options still around - Islam certainly being one of them.

    Peace.

  189. @Ace
    Here are some authoritative Islamic texts, Talha, at least I think the Koran and Bukhari are authoritative:

    K 9.123: "Fight the unbelievers around you and let them find harshness in you".

    K 4:84: "Fight in Allah's Cause. Incite the believers to fight with you."

    K 2:216: "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), even if you dislike it."

    K 47:4: "Smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding them."

    K 8.12: "Smite infidels on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes."

    K 48:28-29: "It is He that has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith, so that he may exalt it above all religions. Sufficient is God as a witness. Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

    K 8:38-39: "Tell the unbelievers that if they mend their ways their past shall be forgiven; but if they persist in sin, let them reflect upon the fate of bygone nations. Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme."

    Bukhari:V4B52N220: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”
     

    Now maybe I just sleep the sleep of the unqualified but that seems like some eminently clear, strong medicine from the Great Arab Father of Fathers to the effect that infidels are scum and deserve to die.

    Muslim behavior around the world certainly is consistent with that view and the voices of more moderate Muslims are muted to say the least. Those one hears about occasionally usually come with accompanying tales of homicidal retaliation that are wildly popular. (I added that bit about being wildly popular. Completely unjustified, I know.)

    Suliman Bashear, that professor at the University of Nablus who opined to his class that Islam didn't emerge "fully formed from the mouth of the Prophet" became airborne for a short while thanks to his students who weren't ignorant 20-y-o jihadis, thank you very munch. I'm sure they were severely punished. (Btw, it's not the 20-year-olds who are calling the shots in Libya, Iraq, and Syria but their superiors, of course, so let's not say the killings they carry out are the result of religious interpretations indulged in by children. The kiddies do what they're told to do.)

    Shahbaz Bhatti and Salmaan Taseer (both deceased per second link) and Prof. Bashear seem(ed) like educated, informed, broadminded men with a good handle on some of the problems of Islamic doctrine (or perhaps simply problems caused by Islamic doctrine) but I suppose you would say they're unqualified to comment on or criticize the Koran too.

    I don't know what exactly those qualified-but-deceased imams in your YouTube video link said that set off the nutcases. Their exact teachings that got them killed would be instructive.

    I don't categorically reject the notion that there are intelligent Koranic scholars who are voices of moderation and try to tamp down the fires of radicalism. I do, however, reject your notion that only "qualified" persons can interpret the Koran, hadiths, and whatever. The great Shia imam a-Sistani in Iraq publishes on his own website that infidels are najis, i.e., down there on the level of dogs, pigs, excrement, and dead bodies. For all I know that's pure gold so far as what the Koran, etc., say about us filthy dog infidels but I, in the darkness of my unqualified soul, say that's garbage, regardless. Vicious, in point of fact. As are the opening quotes I provided. Their meaning is clear.

    You don't have to go to imam school to see that.

    Peace.

    Hey Ace,

    infidels are scum and deserve to die

    ‘Scum’ is your word, but yes, they deserve to die when you are facing them on the battlefield – are we really supposed to be ashamed of this? The question is, when is fighting permitted and in what manner – that is what people like Daesh don’t seem to get.

    I don’t know where you are getting your quotes but they leave out crucial info or specifically use incendiary words since someone without knowledge in Arabic can be fooled. I’ll give a couple of examples:
    8:12 – Why don’t they mention this was a command to the angels at the Battle of Badr and not a general prescription?
    48:29 – Why do they use the incendiary word ‘ruthless’ when no lexical translation to ‘ruthless’ exists from (اشدّاء) – it should be ‘hard’ or ‘tough’; please prove me wrong
    The Bukhari hadith – ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’ is used to make it seem that we are supposed to be terrorists – when the word (رعب) connotes a horror, panic, fear which is what God casts into the hearts of those who fight against His emissaries so they give up without a fight

    Of course you left out this verse (60:8):
    “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.”

    But even that is really of little consequence (because you’ll just go to wikiislam or some other site to grab more info) as I’m about to explain in a bit, but first…

    they’re unqualified to comment on or criticize the Koran too

    They are unqualified, sorry. But you do know the killer of Taseer was executed and it was confirmed by the former Grand Mufti of Pakistan?

    that set off the nutcases

    Did you watch the video? They completely misinterpreted his words based on a typo in the text. And by they, I mean an Electrical Engineer who thought he was a qualified scholar:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_abd-al-Salam_Faraj

    I do, however, reject your notion that only “qualified” persons can interpret the Koran, hadiths, and whatever.

    Ah – we arrive at the meat of the matter. In one sentence you have basically summed up the opinion of Daesh and their followers. The fact that both you and them come to the same conclusions speaks volumes. In fact, all this really tells me is that you would make an extremely dangerous Muslim at this point of your understanding.

    So convince me, why should we accept that anybody and their mother has the right to interpret these texts and throw away centuries of scholarship that state that it should only be in the hands of those who have met the qualifications under those who have met the qualifications under…

    Would any other ethical or legal framework accept this? Would any society accept that an electrical engineer or a burger-flipper that bought “Constitution for Dummies” should have a say in how the Constitution is interpreted?

    The great Shia imam a-Sistani

    If you want to crucify us based on a minority opinion go for it – it’s an act of desperation as far as I’m concerned. In fact, a while ago I wrote these exact words to you – apparently you forgot:
    “The majority Sunni opinion (across the four schools) on this is that the term ‘najis’ refers to the state of the belief of the individual, meaning their beliefs of say atheism, polytheism, etc. NOT their physical being. ”

    Peace.

  190. @raphee
    It is good to see this reply from you. After reading your reply to svigor I did have to pause and try to understand your intent, but frankly gave up.

    What i was implying was that all religions and all ideologies, Islam, Christianity, democracy, capitalism, communism et al, provide enough ammunition within their respective charters that any individual, once he puts his mind to it, can twist and misuse it to achieve any objectives. All he needs is the good luck of a certain set of circumstances--time, place, history-- to create the perfect storm for his propaganda to be effective within a critical mass of people. This is not about the superiority of one religion over the other. Each civilization has its day and it's fall. History is ample evidence of that.

    The particular problem with religions is that unlike modern day theories of capitalism or democracy , religions have a much longer history; even worse their content is moralistic, or at the least includes intangibles, that are far less malleable to empirical testing. Hence not only historically but even in modern times different sects use the same scripture to arrive at different results. Sometimes these varying interpretations have been used to achieve political objectives instead of for intellectual discourse.

    I hope this explains my position and statement better. Of course the subject is worthy of a treatise, but this should suffice.

    As to Islamic Reformation, I would agree that prosperity is important. Even more important for me is that Muslims especially the youth get educated, have hopes of a better tomorrow, and they have freedom, political, intellectual, and material. It is when this hope comes alive amongst Muslims that ISIS and AlQaeda will die their death, for their tools of recruitment wouldve disappeared.

    Side note... Palmyra will rise again. But dinosaurs i love also.

    I have a picture of us meeting enjoyably on a Harvard-Yale-Oxford-Cambridge Cruise of the eastern Med for elderly classicists manqué and you mildly reproving me for cruelly nitpicking questions to our lecturers who have enjoyed too well the night before the expensive wines we have paid for.

    I am sorry I didn’t even make my nitpick in the reply to svigor clear. My logical or perhaps just verbal point was that we wouldn’t have qualms about saying one religion was more tolerant than another so it should surely follow that it was OK to say that a religion was intolerant. I think that nit is now meticulously picked. (Question: is a properly picked nit to be regarded as dead or as fit for a full series of performances? I think I must ask John Derbyshire for a view on that, perhaps in limerick form….”A lively young [old] chap who picked nits…” Oh dear I don’t need a rhyming dictionary to see where JD or the late great Robert Conquest might take this).

    • Replies: @raphee
    Answer: A nit that can be properly picked, was never fit to be a nit at all.

    I'm sure you can provide my answer a better poetic dispensation. Cheers.
  191. “Was seeking to rhyme the word chits

    “As the prize was for dirt

    “His chances he hurt

    “When all he could come up with was flits”

    I think Robert Conquest is still dead.

  192. @Svigor

    Svigor you sound like a cuck. Tearing down Islam is what you should be working on.
     
    I have other fish to fry.

    Svigor you sound like a cuck. Tearing down Islam is what you should be working on.

    I have other fish to fry.

    I think Svigor’s been a hard-core WN for at least something like 15 years, spending his days at Stormfront and places like that. And I know I’ve seen him very frequently commenting on Steve Sailer’s blog for at least a dozen years. He’s also sometimes accused Jared Taylor of running a “kiddie pool” and censoring anything controversial.

    But I noticed a couple of days ago, he said he was really getting annoyed at the ferocious extent of the “anti-Semitism” exhibited by many of the commenters here. And now he’s been denounced as a “cuck” for being insufficently “Islamophobic.”

    I must say that my small webzine has really attracted a remarkable group of energetic participants. Maybe some political sociologistics should use it as an ideological research database.

  193. @attilathehen
    You are a cuck. Can't take a stand.

    I am not sure that you take stands because that requires logical consistency which is hard to determine in your prose. You certainly don’t know nearly enough about me to know whether and in what causes and in what manner I take stands.

    If I were to take (scil. express) stands that you would understand on matters you deal with I would not enjoy much intellectual satisfaction but would be extremely offensive to you.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Wizard of oz, identify yourself: Asian/Jew/black? I told you I am a Caucasian Christian woman.

    Your refusal tells me a great deal about your degeneracy.
  194. @MEexpert

    I would call it inherently violent, militant, and expansionist, though. Mohammed is their model, the way Christ is the model for Christians. You can take anything and commit violence in that thing’s name, but with Islam, it’s the converse; you can’t take the militancy out.

     

    Boy are you ignorant. Which history book are you reading? Stop reading Pat Geller or Robert Spencer. The word Islam itself means peace. Don't read the neocon propaganda.

    Mohammed lived the life of a bandit, executed prisoners, took and kept slaves, had many wives (way more than four), and had sex with children. The contrast with Christ could not be more stark.
     
    And you know it how? It is easy to regurgitate the filth the neocons are putting out against Islam by insulting the Prophet, the most peaceful person. Here is what the real scholars of religion have said about him in the past. Do you think they would have said this if what you wrote were true?

    Ah, the personality of Muhammad! (P.B.U.H), it is most difficult to get into the truth of it. To quote Professor Ramakrishna Rao, in one of the best articles from a non-Muslim, "One can only catch a glimpse of it. What a dramatic succession of picturesque scenes. There is Muhammad, the prophet. There is Muhammad the General; Muhammad the King; Muhammad the Warrior; Muhammad the businessman; Muhammad the preacher; Muhammad the philosopher; Muhammad the statesman; Muhammad the Orator; Muhammad the reformer; Muhammad the refuge of orphans; Muhammad the Protector of Slaves; Muhammad the emancipator of women; Muhammad the Law-giver; Muhammad the Judge; Muhammad the Saint."

    The literature is full of glowing tributes to his personality. French historian, Lamaratine writes, "Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?" (Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.)

    Another western author (Bosworth Smith) continues, "He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports." (Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM, London, 1874, p. 92.)
    Michael Hart puts him at the top of his 100 most influential persons in history. His reasons, "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." (Michael H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, p. 33.)

    "If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls. . . his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words. (Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.)

    Historian Edward Gibbon writes: "It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran. . . The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. 'I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God' is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honours of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion."
    Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay, HISTORY OF THE SARACEN EMPIRE, London, 1870, p. 54.

    "It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher."
    Annie Besant, THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD, Madras,1932, p. 4.

    @The word Islam itself means peace.

    “Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness and peace. In a religious context it means “voluntary submission to God”. Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means “submission” or “surrender”. Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb form, and means “one who submits” or “one who surrenders”. Believers demonstrate submission to God by serving God, following his commands, and rejecting polytheism.” (Wikipedia)

    Submission, surrender after losing the war: “Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant” (“where they make a desert, they call it peace”, Tacitus).

  195. @pelagic
    "Not only is it insane…"

    Agreed. As a comparison, would you say that introducing a system such as Islam (because it is a system as you know, and not merely a religion) to Western societies is equally insane? And vice versa?

    Hey pelagic,

    It is a religion – like all religions before it, it helped define the society including the government (even Zoroastranism and Buddhism did this) – that assumption of that relationship was perfunctory in the past. It is actually the common era that is the historic anomaly.

    Running the West under Somali tribalism is absolutely mad.

    Islam provides some general guidelines, basically it draws a picture and it is up to the various people to color it in as they wish (and try to stay within the lines). Many systems of government can run and be run relatively successfully under an Islamic rubric; republic (Indonesia), monarchy (Jordan), revolving monarchy (Malaysia), tribal confederacy (Somalia), matriarchal nomadic (Tuareg), even military dictatorship (Egypt – if people don’t think one can be run well, they have never heard of the Bahri Mamluks). So introduction of Islam into a Western country would likely make it resemble more Indonesia or Turkey rather than the Tuareg.

    Western man needs to make a choice about where he wants to go because there seem to be certain systemic issues going on. If he wants to keep going this route, introducing Islamic reforms/suggestions are indeed foolhardy and likely going to make matters worse very quickly. If he wants to re-evaluate which direction he wants to go, there are a few options still around – Islam certainly being one of them.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    "Western man needs to make a choice about where he wants to go because there seem to be certain systemic issues going on. If he wants to keep going this route, introducing Islamic reforms/suggestions are indeed foolhardy and likely going to make matters worse very quickly. If he wants to re-evaluate which direction he wants to go, there are a few options still around – Islam certainly being one of them."

    No.

    Western man has turned away from Christianity for all sorts of reasons, but, ultimately, because it requires one to believe in silly supernatural stuff that nobody can take seriously anymore.

    Islam is at least equally vulnerable, on that front.

    Show me a Christian convert to Islam and I'll show you a git.
    , @pelagic
    My understanding of Islam is that it is holistic and there is no separation of mosque and state. The very idea of such a separation is incomprehensible to Muslims. Secularism/democracy must be forcibly impressed on Muslim countries-- would such ideas occur within Muslim populations absent outside forces?

    It seems that tribalism is not hampered by the introduction of Islam. Is it possible Islam even exacerbates or is a catalyst for these ancient and belligerent relations? Evidence abounds in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, etc.

    You paint a very amenable picture of your religion and its capacity to adapt, much as Catholics might say about the cultural mixing and matching of the Church around the world. What do you suppose are the limitations of Islam, inherent or practical, that have confined its success to the more backward peoples of the world? Note: I do not use "backward" in a pejorative sense; I just can't think of a better way to render the socio-economic meaning otherwise.

    Of course the West has options. One option is to elect leaders who will no longer use the ridiculous expression "Islam is the religion of peace."
  196. @Svigor

    It’s a big, foolish mistake – trying to explain events by interpreting religious texts and analyzing religious dogmas. Of any religion. The texts don’t mean a thing; they could as well read ‘blah-blah-blah’.
     
    I don't agree. This is a common projection from atheists and agnostics and secular types ("they can't possibly take that nonsense seriously," etc.), but I don't think it obtains. I think the Scripture of a religion reinforces and enshrines behavior. Furthermore, it serves to fortify a culture against change.

    "We must change."

    "But The Great One did it this way."

    "We must change, adapt."

    "You are asking me to forsake my religion. Here, have an IED."

    A great many obviously take Islam seriously, at least as a matter of law. (And I'm not sure what they would take seriously, if that were to end.). Saying it doesn't matter how they read is like saying it doesn't matter how the law reads.

    Talha, you are comparing The Islamic Model to historical norms, as if I were comparing it to current norms. I am not. I am comparing The Islamic Model to the Christian Model, relating them both back to current norms, and querying the viability of each in regard to those norms.

    The Islamic Model does not fare well.

    Correct, but it was halal in Christendom for centuries too.
     
    It is not defensible, per se, because of anything Christ did. One cannot say, "Christ kept slaves, thus, it will always be a part of Christianity, blessed by the most Holy who has ever lived, the Earthly model of our faith." On the contrary, one cannot argue that keeping slaves is part of a Christ-like life.

    Slavery is in principle permitted, but as Mufti Taqi Uthmani (former Grand Mufti of Pakistan) stated:
     
    Yes, but he's just a man. Mohammed is The Model. And Mohammed kept slaves. Who is some Mufti, compared to The Prophet? No one, that's who.

    Look, I don’t take anyone seriously who won’t step up and denounce all of the previous generations of Europeans and Christians who thought it was fine to sleep with a woman once she started bleeding as pedophiles. It is rank hypocrisy and posturing. So, were they all pedophiles or enablers – it is a yes or no question? And how the hell did men like Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin and Luther completely miss that – wow!
     
    Well, if you insist...I will.

    After you denounce the Prophet for doing it.

    All the rest of what you wrote is squid-ink. I am not talking about Muslim cultures, or Muslim countries. All of that is tangential.

    I am talking about The Prophet Mohammed, and Islam.

    Neither would he have anything in his Holy Book to interdict it
     
    Which is far less in support of it than the Koran, which blesses it.

    Peace and much respect for being courteous in your reply – that is heads and tails above the invective I’ve had to deal with from others.
     
    NP. Don't get too used to it. I am a capricious and moody fellow. I may be hurling invective tomorrow. :)

    Hey Svigor,

    I am comparing The Islamic Model to the Christian Model

    So am I – the Christian Model was just as well defined by men like Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, etc. – not by anonymous posters on the Internet. Why should I take your assumption for granted that all of them got fundamental things wrong while the Christians of this century have not? And if they did get things so fundamentally wrong; views on the morality of slavery, capital punishment for blasphemy, etc. – what confidence does one have in any coherence in that tradition?

    On the contrary, one cannot argue that keeping slaves is part of a Christ-like life.

    Neither is marriage neither is running a government or a navy. The problem is, he knew it was happening and never, ever condemned it. He (according to Christians) told slaves to obey their masters. According to our principles, if an emissary of God witnesses something immoral in their society, they are obligated to refute or denounce it because that is the reason why they are sent – otherwise it is a breach of their trust and they are never untrustworthy. The silence of an emissary of God in the presence of an act is evidence of its permissibility. Slavery is permissible – not necessary – emancipation is better and highly rewarded; this has been the position of Islam since inception.

    Christianity allowed it, doesn’t allow it now, and may possibly allow it in the future – what guarantee do you have that it won’t?

    And Mohammed kept slaves.

    Yes and he emancipated slaves – square the circle for me; which one is mustahab (recommended), which one is mubah (merely permissible)? No peeking at our texts now for answers.

    Who is some Mufti, compared to The Prophet? No one, that’s who.

    Like Ace, you have basically summed up the viewpoint of Daesh and herein lies the fundamental problem. The Prophet (pbuh) is no longer here, nor will there be any new revelation. All we have is what source texts there are (which in and of themselves are part of and preserved by the scholars of the same tradition – where do you think the collections of Bukhari and Muslim and Ibn Majah came from – outer space?). Since the Prophet (pbuh) cannot be asked directly, these must needs be interpreted to figure out what is demanded of us – that is no doubt. The question is; who is doing the interpretation? For you, it is fine that some random person from Daesh goes into the texts and pulls out the idea that Muslims can simply revive slavery after it has been eradicated and in contradiction to the pact we have with non-Muslims. Mufti Taqi Uthmani has been studying this religion for over five decades, he sits on the top international councils of Muslim scholars. Why is it that he concludes this with regard to the halting of slavery:
    “As for the question of whether this pact [to prohibit slavery] is allowed, I have not seen its ruling explicitly in [the writings of] the early scholars, and it is apparent that it is permissible because taking slaves is not something obligatory, rather it is an option from four options, and the option therein is for the Imam. And it is apparent from the texts on the virtue of emancipation and other [texts] that freedom is more desirable in the Islamic Shari‘ah [than slavery], so there is no harm in making such a pact, so long as other nations conform to it and do not violate it.”

    While Daesh is trying to revive it – and you think they are correct? I’m not even mentioning great scholars like Shaykh Bin Bayyah, the late Shaykh Ramadan Bouti, etc. who denounced Daesh for reviving the practice. Do you think they are not aware of the verses and hadith on the subject? I’m all ears, give me a reason why the most senior Islamic scholars of the world are wrong and you are right.

    Actually don’t waste your time – that was mostly rhetorical. Your voice is actually irrelevant in the debate since it is our religion and we define its parameters and this is a completely internal matter. Nobody (that means all of us including Daesh with who we are at war) actually listens to non-Muslim voices on these things since the tradition is insulated from their input. Sorry. :)

    After you denounce the Prophet for doing it.

    I’m not denouncing anybody, if anything our tradition actually confirms that your ancestors were not degenerates (assuming they were delaying sex until onset of puberty) – whether you choose to condemn them or not. I was asking you to stick to your principles. I’m not obligated to condemn neither side by my principles.

    If – according to you – all of Christendom and Europe was full of child molesters and enablers for the lion’s share of its history until the 20th century – fine with me. Again, deal with the consequences on the Day of Judgement.

    All of that is tangential.

    Only because you don’t understand the relationship of ‘urf to the Shariah.

    I am talking about The Prophet Mohammed, and Islam.

    So am I; I think my points are not hitting their mark. I wrote quite a bit so I hope others at least will get what I’m talking about.

    Which is far less in support

    There is no support or negation – the Bible is completely silent on the matter. I’m sorry, that is the fact. You can quote verses mentioning ‘woman’ all you want, but that is defined lexically by what it meant to the people hearing it – not something that is redefined 19 centuries later.

    the Koran, which blesses it

    Uh no – the rules for age of marriage are all detailed through hadith actually.

    I may be hurling invective tomorrow.

    No problem, once that starts flying, I will shut down and withdraw from the conversation. My teachers have taught me to to courteous and civil – but not a punching bag.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha

    He (according to Christians) told slaves to obey their masters.
     
    Sorry, I believe that was his disciples like Peter.

    The rest of the statements stand.

    Peace.
    , @anon

    Christianity allowed it, doesn’t allow it now, and may possibly allow it in the future – what guarantee do you have that it won’t?
     
    The economic arrangement known as slavery is not in itself immoral (that is, it could be moral in an ideal world), but it has disappeared from Christian society several times because it is always vicious and immoral in practice.
  197. @Talha
    Hey Svigor,

    I am comparing The Islamic Model to the Christian Model
     
    So am I - the Christian Model was just as well defined by men like Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, etc. - not by anonymous posters on the Internet. Why should I take your assumption for granted that all of them got fundamental things wrong while the Christians of this century have not? And if they did get things so fundamentally wrong; views on the morality of slavery, capital punishment for blasphemy, etc. - what confidence does one have in any coherence in that tradition?

    On the contrary, one cannot argue that keeping slaves is part of a Christ-like life.
     
    Neither is marriage neither is running a government or a navy. The problem is, he knew it was happening and never, ever condemned it. He (according to Christians) told slaves to obey their masters. According to our principles, if an emissary of God witnesses something immoral in their society, they are obligated to refute or denounce it because that is the reason why they are sent - otherwise it is a breach of their trust and they are never untrustworthy. The silence of an emissary of God in the presence of an act is evidence of its permissibility. Slavery is permissible - not necessary - emancipation is better and highly rewarded; this has been the position of Islam since inception.

    Christianity allowed it, doesn't allow it now, and may possibly allow it in the future - what guarantee do you have that it won't?

    And Mohammed kept slaves.
     
    Yes and he emancipated slaves - square the circle for me; which one is mustahab (recommended), which one is mubah (merely permissible)? No peeking at our texts now for answers.

    Who is some Mufti, compared to The Prophet? No one, that’s who.
     
    Like Ace, you have basically summed up the viewpoint of Daesh and herein lies the fundamental problem. The Prophet (pbuh) is no longer here, nor will there be any new revelation. All we have is what source texts there are (which in and of themselves are part of and preserved by the scholars of the same tradition - where do you think the collections of Bukhari and Muslim and Ibn Majah came from - outer space?). Since the Prophet (pbuh) cannot be asked directly, these must needs be interpreted to figure out what is demanded of us - that is no doubt. The question is; who is doing the interpretation? For you, it is fine that some random person from Daesh goes into the texts and pulls out the idea that Muslims can simply revive slavery after it has been eradicated and in contradiction to the pact we have with non-Muslims. Mufti Taqi Uthmani has been studying this religion for over five decades, he sits on the top international councils of Muslim scholars. Why is it that he concludes this with regard to the halting of slavery:
    "As for the question of whether this pact [to prohibit slavery] is allowed, I have not seen its ruling explicitly in [the writings of] the early scholars, and it is apparent that it is permissible because taking slaves is not something obligatory, rather it is an option from four options, and the option therein is for the Imam. And it is apparent from the texts on the virtue of emancipation and other [texts] that freedom is more desirable in the Islamic Shari‘ah [than slavery], so there is no harm in making such a pact, so long as other nations conform to it and do not violate it."

    While Daesh is trying to revive it - and you think they are correct? I'm not even mentioning great scholars like Shaykh Bin Bayyah, the late Shaykh Ramadan Bouti, etc. who denounced Daesh for reviving the practice. Do you think they are not aware of the verses and hadith on the subject? I'm all ears, give me a reason why the most senior Islamic scholars of the world are wrong and you are right.

    Actually don't waste your time - that was mostly rhetorical. Your voice is actually irrelevant in the debate since it is our religion and we define its parameters and this is a completely internal matter. Nobody (that means all of us including Daesh with who we are at war) actually listens to non-Muslim voices on these things since the tradition is insulated from their input. Sorry. :)

    After you denounce the Prophet for doing it.
     
    I'm not denouncing anybody, if anything our tradition actually confirms that your ancestors were not degenerates (assuming they were delaying sex until onset of puberty) - whether you choose to condemn them or not. I was asking you to stick to your principles. I'm not obligated to condemn neither side by my principles.

    If - according to you - all of Christendom and Europe was full of child molesters and enablers for the lion's share of its history until the 20th century - fine with me. Again, deal with the consequences on the Day of Judgement.

    All of that is tangential.
     
    Only because you don't understand the relationship of 'urf to the Shariah.

    I am talking about The Prophet Mohammed, and Islam.
     
    So am I; I think my points are not hitting their mark. I wrote quite a bit so I hope others at least will get what I'm talking about.

    Which is far less in support
     
    There is no support or negation - the Bible is completely silent on the matter. I'm sorry, that is the fact. You can quote verses mentioning 'woman' all you want, but that is defined lexically by what it meant to the people hearing it - not something that is redefined 19 centuries later.

    the Koran, which blesses it
     
    Uh no - the rules for age of marriage are all detailed through hadith actually.

    I may be hurling invective tomorrow.
     
    No problem, once that starts flying, I will shut down and withdraw from the conversation. My teachers have taught me to to courteous and civil - but not a punching bag.

    Peace.

    He (according to Christians) told slaves to obey their masters.

    Sorry, I believe that was his disciples like Peter.

    The rest of the statements stand.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @another fred

    Sorry, I believe that was his disciples like Peter.
     
    It was Paul.

    FYI, even (most of) those who believe the Bible is the literal "Word of God" (similarly to the way Muslims believe of the Q'uran) acknowledge that the belief of the early Christians was that the "end of the Age" (the Apocalypse) was imminent (though the time was unknown). There was no incentive to be concerned with secular matters. The early Christian writings are concerned with salvation and the individual's relationship to God.

    Keep in mind that they were living under the domination of the pagan Roman Empire.

  198. Diversity Heretic says: