The Situation in Pakistan

[Sophid]

All musashi said was that, while the muslim religion exists, it is dangerous.

Not only do I disagree with that statement, but I don't see how calling someone a towelhead expresses that muslims are dangerous.

[musashi]

Ultimately some towel-headed kook with a nine-year-old bride named Aisha gets the keys to the nukes

Muslim is a bad violent religion, that's the cause of terrorism today. That's just stating a fact.
I suppose Aisha is a Japanese name. So it comes from a matter of Japanese prise, proudly spoken for entire culture in 1940s who had no problems with suicide and killing millions in China. Now, I suppose you mean using 'Aisha' as Japanese name is racist. But then I don't see what is racist about that: it's not the same as saying that all Japanese would drop the nukes on USA..

Actually Aisha was one of the 11 to 13 wives of Muhammad (PBUH). Aisha was the five-year-old bride, where the marriage was consummated after her ninth birthday.

If my comments have offended please except my apologies. I intended them to be humorous. I am bigoted and racist. I believe it is impossible for any person to be unbigoted or non-racist. So, in imitation of many comedians, I look past the obvious and go for the pedestrian laugh were I can.

I try my best not to directly insult specific individuals. Sometimes I do not achieve my aims.

And of course everybody knows that Muslims don’t wear towels on their heads, they wear skullcaps. The wearing of the towel is a Vedic tradition, but it is often associated with Arab culture.

[Arakasi Takeda]

I think this is completely missing the point and takin out of context. All musashi said was that, while the muslim religion exists, it is dangerous.

People who take the writings about Allah seriously, and take it to its fully meaning, terrorism will exist.

So when giving "respect" for something so evil is actually evil.

You may be right, but you run the risk of a very serious problem here.

Do people have a Right to Free Expression? To Free Religious Expression?

Many people would argue, faced with Rand's definitions, that they do have a right to free religious expression, because 'it is necessary for the furtherance, fulfillment, and enjoyment of their lives'. I believe that many, if not most, of us would probably take issue - Are they being _rational_ in regards to belief in a religion, and, certainly, a right to free religious expression does not extend to _killing_ others, but then you have to answer at what point do you draw the line? If you acknowledge _any_ right to free religious expression at all, derived from the Right of Life, you will inevitably have to draw out the boundries of that right, and would therefore be dictating someone else's freedom to them.

Who decides that line?

Some parts of Islamic doctrine and practices are demonstratably evil. Some parts are questionable, and some parts may well be fine, from a Randian point of view. Are any of us qualified to determine the full extent of those lines? Most of us aren't even familiar with the full doctrine of Islam - how can we possibly consider ourselves to be qualified to make that judgement?

When you say the word 'tolerance', whether you consider it good or bad, with what measuring stick are you using? Are you infringing on another individual's Right to Life, or protecting your Own? Do you really know for certain where that line is?

Me, I prefer not to make broad statements from doctrinarial ignorance. I attack the individuals practicing violence, not make judgements about the beliefs. There may well be something sinister about the doctrine of Islam (or Christianity, or any other religious or philosophical belief), but until I am satisfied that I indeed possess the necessary expertise to really judge where that line between my right and their right lays, I don't see how I can take any meaningful stance on the whole religion.

AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Have you ever read the Qu'ran, Oleksandr? I'm interested in hearing about all of the evil it preaches... perhaps you could tell us what some of these things are?

Since I also said some about this, I decided to read up.

There is no way I will read that text, but I don't mind finding other overviews of it.

Someone talking about it

[Tolthar Lockbar]

oops, I didn't mean that part of the webpage, when you click that link, scroll to the top

[musashi]

This is actually a bad analogy. Being Muslim in a choice, being white is something one is born with.

I would take issue with the idea that being a Muslim is always a 'choice'; most Muslims (like the followers of most religions) are indoctrinated when they are children and are incapable of resisting, or, in some cases, even understanding that they have an alternative. As such, it is a false choice.

I concur if you are born into a Muslim family in Egypt, you are considered a defacto Muslim. You do not have to practice the religion. However if you decide to renounce Islam; Shiara Law dictates capital punishment. So its not like these people have a choice.

On the other hand Coptic Christians in Egypt are executed by the Muslims for their religious beliefs too. They do have a choice, and have elected to risk death in pursuit of their faith. Aren’t Muslims nice folks? Personally I give them very little quarter.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

You may be right, but you run the risk of a very serious problem here.

Do people have a Right to Free Expression? To Free Religious Expression?

I also think Christianity is evil and dangerous (though more in the long term) but I don't think we bomb them. Nor do I think we should bomb muslims. We should bomb terrorist. Just because something is bad, doesn't give the right to destroy it.

They can have their rocks until they throw them at me. But I will not throw back until I know they are going to.

[Oleksandr]

Have you ever read the Qu'ran, Oleksandr? I'm interested in hearing about all of the evil it preaches... perhaps you could tell us what some of these things are?

Sure thing, here's the quote:

"Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold to be forbidden that which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, of the people of the Book ..."

From here

Should be enough.

[Arakasi Takeda]

Quote:
A nation's culture is the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men, which their fellow-citizens have accepted in whole or in part, and which have influenced the nation's way of life. Since a culture is a complex battleground of different ideas and influences, to speak of a "culture" is to speak only of the dominant ideas, always allowing for the existence of dissenters and exceptions.

Actually, no, according to the definition of "culture" I gave, what I did was an inductive reasoning to describe the dominant trend of Native American culture as a whole. Nothing racist here.

You apparently missed my point - There is no 'Native American Culture' as a whole. Rand's definition is much more specific. She talks about a 'nation's culture'. As I stated, there were literally hundreds of separate tribes and nations of indigenous peoples. It is not the case that all 'fellow-members of every tribe accepted all the intellectual achievements, in whole or in part' of individuals within all tribes.' Many nations had cultural practices unique or completely opposed to the cultural practices of other tribes. Some were agrarian, while others were migratory; some hunted bison, while others had never seen such a creature in their lives; some were builders in stone, while others in wood or mud, some believed in simple animal spirits, while others had large and complex pantheons of anthropomorphized gods. There is no single continuous culture which all tribes shared. As such, you cannot speak of a broad 'Native American' culture because those intellectual achivements have not been shared by every person under which you have spread that umbrella term.

AT

[Kaimera Feran]

Have you ever read the Qu'ran, Oleksandr? I'm interested in hearing about all of the evil it preaches... perhaps you could tell us what some of these things are?

Sure thing, here's the quote:

"Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold to be forbidden that which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, of the people of the Book ..."

From http://books.google.com/books?id=i6WzlX ... #PPA150,M1

Should be enough.

The Bible is filled with violence much like the Qu'ran is. Yet I do not hear anyone saying that it is evil? Here is some good stuff from Exodus.

Exodus
15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

15:6 Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.

15:7 And in the greatness of thine excellency thou hast overthrown them that rose up against thee: thou sentest forth thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble.

17:16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

22:24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

And people who follow that text should be made fun of.

But no force should be put against them until we know they are gonna be hostile.

[Arakasi Takeda]

Perhaps I can make my point this way -

The term 'Native American' suggests a grouping of all tribal peoples in 'The New World' - geographically, North and South America. You are stating that all of these peoples share a culture.

If I were to say that Europeans were bloodthirsty fascists because they supported Hitler, you'd probably question my logic. Well, all Europeans share, by definition, a single geographic area. They share what appears to be similarities of 'culture'. And, it is true, that there were Europeans who sided with the Nazi's during the Second World War. Therefore, using the same logic you have presented in brushing the Native American's as 'savages', I would be logically justified in calling all Europeans 'Fascists'.

The difference is, I recognize the logical fallacy of doing so. Not _all_ Europeans supported Fascism. Many fought against it. Mostly, the determination of which groups were fascists and which were not can be logically approximated by understanding which individual European Nation they belongs too. In the same way, which 'Native American' tribes might qualify as being savages depends entirely on which individual Native American Tribe you are referring to. To speak of all those tribes as a whole is erroneous.

AT

[musashi]

Have you ever read the Qu'ran, Oleksandr? I'm interested in hearing about all of the evil it preaches... perhaps you could tell us what some of these things are?

Since I also said some about this, I decided to read up.

There is no way I will read that text, but I don't mind finding other overviews of it.

I did read my copy before I propped up the patio table with it. Like many religious texts, the Holy Koran is absolutely packed with great advice about living a quality life. I would say that it is dated, in that much of the advice relates to life in the desert in the Sixth century. I have seen positive results through Islamic worship.

Where Qur’an departs from some other doctrine is in a few sections. Here are some choice quotes.

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost

and

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

I actually think that much good could come from following the tenants of this religion. But as long as silly things like that are in the book, it blows the whole deal. Literal interpretation is mandatory when you believe you are reading the words of God.

[Kaimera Feran]

And people who follow that text should be made fun of.

But no force should be put against them until we know they are gonna be hostile.

I'm just saying that we would be gravely mistaken to assume that all 1.8 Billion living Muslims are "evil" because the Qu'ran has some riveting passages in it. Islam is not evil, Muslims are not evil. Anyone trying to state otherwise as a "fact" is merely stating a heavily biased opinion and should not try to pass it off as anything more than that.

*fixed grammar

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Perhaps I can make my point this way -

This is getting redundant.

The argument is obvious from both sides. Olex stated that most natives were savage and blood thursty. AT is stating that most were not.

If most were, the statement of "The natives were savages" is valid (using induction).

If most were not, that statement is not valid.

Most, in this context, is the amount that is sufficient to make a generalization/abstraction/concept of it.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I'm just saying that we would be gravely mistaken to assume that all 1.8 Billion living Muslims are "evil" because the Qu'ran has some riveting passages in it. Islam is not evil, Muslims are not evil. Anyone trying to state otherwise as a "fact" is merely stating a heavily biased opinion and should not try to pass it off as anything more than that.

Believing anything that is not based on reason is immoral and therefor evil. It is not an evil to be punished until it breaks someones rights.

Are you saying that something is not evil unless it hurts someone else?

[Kaimera Feran]

I'm just saying that we would be gravely mistaken to assume that all 1.8 Billion living Muslims are "evil" because the Qu'ran has some riveting passages in it. Islam is not evil, Muslims are not evil. Anyone trying to state otherwise as a "fact" is merely stating a heavily biased opinion and should not try to pass it off as anything more than that.

Believing anything that is not based on reason is immoral and therefor evil. It is not an evil to be punished until it breaks someones rights.

Are you saying that something is not evil unless it hurts someone else?

Religion is not evil. Ideas are not evil. Objects are not evil. Someone using religion out of context to commit foul deeds is evil. Terrorists are evil. Rapists are evil. Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. A muslim family living in Indonesia is not evil. The Bible is not evil, and neither is the Qu'ran. People can be and are sometimes evil. But we would be mistaken to assume that all people like them are evil too.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

So communism is not an evil idea?

Neither is murder? Its just the action of such that is evil?

Whatyour saying is the mind-body dichotomy. Every action comes from thought. The action is to be judge just as much as the thought behind it.

Its not people missinterpreting the Ka'ran either, its them taking it literally for its objective meaning.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

A good agrument to follow for this is the Peikoff vs Kelley debate.

[musashi]

And people who follow that text should be made fun of.

But no force should be put against them until we know they are gonna be hostile.

I'm just saying that we would be gravely mistaken to assume that all 1.8 Billion living Muslims are "evil" because the Qu'ran has some riveting passages in it. Islam is not evil, Muslims are not evil.

I can’t claim it to be a fact. But the concept can be tested. Get one piece of chalk. Go to your nearest Mosque. Draw a face on the sidewalk out front (allowing the faithful a complete and full view). Write the inscription “Allah” beneath the face. Observe the response.

Obviously this test will need to be performed at a statistically significant number of Mosques. I would imagine after about 50 beatings (if you survive) you might reach the conclusion that Muslims are at best universally intolerant. And for me intolerance is a form of evil.

Oh and just to save some thread time, just as I had no difficulties with being a bigot and racist. I have no difficulties being evil either – all things in moderation, except moderation.

[Sophid]

And people who follow that text should be made fun of.

But no force should be put against them until we know they are gonna be hostile.

I'm just saying that we would be gravely mistaken to assume that all 1.8 Billion living Muslims are "evil" because the Qu'ran has some riveting passages in it. Islam is not evil, Muslims are not evil.

I can’t claim it to be a fact. But the concept can be tested. Get one piece of chalk. Go to your nearest Mosque. Draw a face on the sidewalk out front (allowing the faithful a complete and full view). Write the inscription “Allah” beneath the face. Observe the response.

Obviously this test will need to be performed at a statistically significant number of Mosques. I would imagine after about 50 beatings (if you survive) you might reach the conclusion that Muslims are at best universally intolerant. And for me intolerance is a form of evil.

Oh and just to save some thread time, just as I had no difficulties with being a bigot and racist. I have no difficulties being evil either – all things in moderation, except moderation.

So, you are saying that if you march over to a mosque and perform an action known to be offensive, deliberately to draw a reaction, you should be surprised at the reaction?

I think that's a pretty poor test and that many groups would react in a similarly negative manner if one were to mock their beliefs in chalk on their sidewalk.

[Oleksandr]

Religion is not evil. Ideas are not evil. Objects are not evil. Someone using religion out of context to commit foul deeds is evil. Terrorists are evil. Rapists are evil. Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. A muslim family living in Indonesia is not evil. The Bible is not evil, and neither is the Qu'ran. People can be and are sometimes evil. But we would be mistaken to assume that all people like them are evil too.

This is a false dichotomy that has been in philosophy for a while. It even lead to separation of a dumb school (Kelley) from Objectivism.

This article discusses it in depth.

"Fact and Value" by Piekoff
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... ctivism_fv

The fundamental issue raised by Kelley concerns the relationship between the true and the good. What kind of thing, Kelley asks, can be true or false, and what kind good or evil? In other words (my words): what is the relationship between fact and value? Kelley takes a definite stand on this issue, one which leads him, logically, to uphold "tolerance" as "a virtue in the cognitive realm," and to accuse Schwartz and others like him (myself and Ayn Rand presumably included) of "zealotry," "hysteria," "non-intellectuality," "malevolence," "closed-mindedness" and the like.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

So, you are saying that if you march over to a mosque and perform an action known to be offensive, deliberately to draw a reaction, you should be surprised at the reaction?

I think that's a pretty poor test and that many groups would react in a similarly negative manner if one were to mock their beliefs in chalk on their sidewalk.

So if someone calls my mother a big fat pig, and draws a picture of her as a big fat pig, that gives me a right to beat them? Nearly to death?

[Kaimera Feran]

So communism is not an evil idea?

Neither is murder? Its just the action of such that is evil?

Whatyour saying is the mind-body dichotomy. Every action comes from thought. The action is to be judge just as much as the thought behind it.

Its not people missinterpreting the Ka'ran either, its them taking it literally for its objective meaning.

Believe whatever you want to... belief is not evil. There are those who believe that we should nuke every Islamic country until the sands of the desert are glass. Thinking that isn't evil. Doing it surely would be.

[Sophid]

So, you are saying that if you march over to a mosque and perform an action known to be offensive, deliberately to draw a reaction, you should be surprised at the reaction?

I think that's a pretty poor test and that many groups would react in a similarly negative manner if one were to mock their beliefs in chalk on their sidewalk.

So if someone calls my mother a big fat pig, and draws a picture of her as a big fat pig, that gives me a right to beat them? Nearly to death?

I don't think it gives them the right, but they can definitely expect a beating as one potential outcome from doing that. My point is that such a reaction is not restricted only to the 'evil, impious muslims.' And don't forget that Christians used to burn people alive for saying that the earth rotated around the sun.

There are holy sites in Israel where one can fully expect to be beaten if you don't have some kind of hat or covering on your head.