Amber

Thanks! And thanks for giving me a specific!

It's not "beneath" me. It's that this is a *casual* discussion forum, which should be more light-hearted. I have enough worrying in my regular life to meet deadlines and make sure every detail is right .... in fact I get complimented on my ability to do this at work .... and I write my own articles, in which I have to edit and re-edit .... I'm not really interested in coming to a *discussion* forum, which should be light-hearted, and getting nitpicked. I will worry about perfection when it *matters* and allot my time to other things that are of value to me, like going to the gym or being with my b/f rather than editing and re-editing *discussion forum* posts. Sorry, but that is ridiculous and those who are worried about nothing but mere *typos* have too much time on their hands. And, I hate to be catty like this, but if you want to play this game ... frankly, I went to GC's website last night and even noted to myself that his grammar was not that good! If this site wants utterly perfect posts all the time, that's fine, but I'm not about to stay .... and I know I contribute a lot of ideas and discussion wherever I go.

[it's "reason," not "resaon" -GC] GC- I like this place. I took a look at your website and I also liked it. However, the above was nothing but a typo. This place is nothing but a discussion forum. I don't really have a lot of time in my life, let alone extra time to go in and edit internet discussion posts. Sorry, but if this is going to be a place not about discussing ideas but nitpicking each other .... I'm not about to stay.

:shock: :shock: No wonder the audience went crazy after the play ... a man killing his lover after she waited for him faithfully ... a man they were made to feel sorry for ... therefore cannot brandish him as evil, but knowing full well that they want to and should ..... This play seems to be about anarchy, and meant to make you feel the cold despair of lawlessness .... powerful, but not sure I like it.

I guess what I am asking is: why don't they understand the broader application of reason? Reason does not necessarily involve calculus, algebra, engineering, or heavy duty math problems. Yet this is the automatic assumption whenever I bring it up. And I am also kind of looking for a better definition of terms. While solving a calculus problem obviously involves reason, in that you have to understand the principles of calculus, you have to understand the problem right in front of you, etc., but actually SOLVING it seems more like "logic" to me.

Why is it that, whenever I mention reason, people seem to think it only applies to people solving some kind of mathematical problem? Reason is anything and everything man has to do to understand the world around him .... from knowing what color "blue" is to understanding how a combustion engine works. Just wondering. [it's "reason," not "resaon" -GC]

Thanks. Any comments? I've read it too many times, I can't judge it anymore. :_-(

Ok, here is the bad boy I've been working on. This is my first rough draft of it. Unfortunately, I think I will have to put it away for a little bit to come back and make more edits. But I figured I would put it out there to get some feed back .... Hope you enjoy .... I've been working hard on this ... I know it's long but I hope worth it! Islam on Trial: The Prosecution's Case Against Islam September 11, 2001 changed the world. Islamic terrorists hijacked American airplanes; flew them into several, major, symbolic buildings of hers; causing thousands to fall, crash or burn to their early death. The terrorists who did it did not do it for money or land but for their religion - being promised 72 virgins. It thrust unto us Middle Eastern politics, Islam, and a new enemy. Islam itself has come into the forefront of public debate. Or at least it should have. The majority of us have at least a crude knowledge of Islam and what Islamic countries are like. We know they live in abject poverty. We know their progress is slim to none. We know many of them treat their dogs better than women. We know they defy just about all Western ideals. One would think that, especially after September 11, 2001, there would be criticism of Islam coming from every which way. Feminists, Christians, capitalists, secularists, human rights activists, hell even animal rights activists should have something to say about Islam. We are, after all, a country with free speech. Yet, even after September 11, there has been nothing but haunting silence. In the current state of the world, Muslims are involved in almost every war or battle. It was Muslim terrorists who bombed a train in Madrid Spain; Muslim terrorists who held a school hostage in Russia, killing children; Muslim terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center. The past 1400 years of Islamic history has been riddled with terrorism, from the days of Muhammad to Al-Zarqawi. But, for whatever reason, Islam is above any kind of critical look or debate. It is given an almost holy status. People don’t just avoid criticism of it; they are quick to defend it. The defenses given for Islam are so hysterical; you would think you just insulted their mothers or something. Islam is not the problem, we keep getting told. The terrorists, they assure us, had the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran and are not true Muslims. We have watched Islamic terrorists behead innocent civilians. We have been told that this is completely and totally against Islam. From the Koran1: We have watched Islamic terrorists commit ‘jihad’ against the West. Under no circumstances, we are lectured, does the Koran tell its followers to attack nonbelievers. From the Koran: We know that the Islamic terrorists envision a world that is entirely Muslim. Surely this has nothing to do with the Islam religion. From the Koran: It is interesting the responses I usually get when I start quoting the Koran directly. When I start quoting the Koran, such as the verses I previously quoted, the responses I get are usually: • That I must not be quoting from the Koran but another book that quotes the Koran, which must be wrong. • That Muslims believe some parts of the Koran were written by Satan. (And it must be these bad quotes that I gave them.) • That what I quoted to them was only one or two verses and I must take into consideration the whole book. (Which I happily will). • That the translation I am reading is wrong, and the original Koran is much gentler and nicer. It is really rather obvious: quoting what the Koran actually says is too much for their ears. Shut if off: let them see and hear no evil. Is there any particular reason that we all are so scared of criticizing Islam? It is so bad, we can’t even watch movies where the enemy is, heaven forbid, Islamic terrorists. The bloody history of Islamic history is whitewashed in our history books. In fact, the more violent Islam gets, it seems, the more excuses and protection it gets. If you ever notice, Islam was not called a “Religion of Peace” before 9/11. Then they kill 3000 people and get called a religion of “peace.” Perhaps it should be our new slogan: Ignorance is Strength; Freedom is Slavery; Islam is Peace. September 11, 2001 changed world politics forever - or at least it should have. The oppression, mass murder and terrorism that has marked the Middle East for 1400 years hurled itself unto Western society. Yet no one is will to identify the enemy - scared, not for fear of political persecution or assassination, but for fear of becoming unpopular. When something so obvious and so horrible becomes so wrong to talk about: that is when you know it’s time to talk about it. Ladies and Gentleman, this is the prosecution’s case against Islam. I am charging it with creating poverty, rape, slavery, oppression and terrorism. The Cast Against Islam When it comes to the connection between Islam and Islamic terrorism, it is our ability to reason - in this case the ability to read the Koran - that is so often under attack. Therefore, let us begin by reviewing our fundamentals: our philosophical fundamentals. When reading a book, the two fundamentals involved are what it is for all of man’s interaction with reality: existence and consciousness. A person’s beliefs on existence and consciousness, which is their metaphysics and epistemology, is the foundation of their philosophical beliefs and will effect every other aspect of their worldly views. Existence is what exists and consciousness is awareness of what exists. Is existence firm and absolute or an ever-moldable flux? Is existence understandable to human consciousness or are humans doomed to never understand the reality around them? Please note that reason is the process by which man absorbs sensory data and categorizes it in his mind as to understand it. Therefore reason is only possible if existence is absolute and man’s consciousness is potent enough to understand existence. It is the philosophy of objectivism that maintains that reality is what it is and man is capable of understanding it. When reading a book, what exists is the text and the degree to which you are conscious of what it says is the degree to which you focus your mind on it. The purpose is to study the text so that you can develop an understanding of it, i.e. discover its identity. You do not re-invent what you are reading or come to your own arbitrary conclusion regarding what the text says: your goal is to come to a clear, precise understanding of what the text means. The ability to do this is called reading comprehension. You do not typically have an “interpretation” of a text; you have an understanding of it. “Interpretations” are only necessary when some aspect of reality is confusing, vague or hard to understand. For instance, an interpreter is needed to translate one language to another for people, as the foreign language is otherwise incomprehensible to those people. “Interpretations” therefore also imply that only a person with an advanced or specialized knowledge can interpret something - it is not open to a lay person. “Interpretations,” such as the “interpretation” of the law or the “interpretation” of someone’s behavior are also generally regarded as only someone’s opinion - only quasi-based on fact - apt to be right or wrong. It is revealing that those who discuss Islam always refer to human understanding of the Koran as a mere “interpretation.” By identifying human understanding of the Koran as an “interpretation,” it automatically establishes the text as fluid, subjective and moldable - as an incomprehensible text that anyone can take any different way. There may perhaps be parts of the Koran that are confusing and contradictory and indeed need an interpreter. But if so, one must point out what text is confusing or contradictory and what the different “interpretations” thereof might be, especially, given their charges, as it pertains to terrorism. This would open the debate up to human reason. But those who defend Islam do not do this: instead they typically make a broad, generic statement that people make the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran. Broad statements such as this are not indicative of a confusing or contradictory text but of an assault on objectivity itself. Notice this author’s defense of not being able to understand a “true Islam.” This is from a website called humiliateamerica.com: Not even history, according the author, is objectively determinable. This is not just an attack on the ability to understand Islam but reality itself. I propose that the arguments about the inability to interpret the Koran are not meant to emphasize the confusing nature of the Koran but to exempt it from the Law of Identity itself. They want us to regard the text of the Koran as being without any identity; that even if it says up, it could really mean down; black can be white; or any A can be any other non-A. This same attack on objectivity does not just happen with the Koran; it has infiltrated all the major humanities, and even some of the hard sciences. For instance, indeed in history, the new breed of historians (known as revisionists) will tell you that there is no objective history; that it is (of course), “open to interpretation.” In political science, new supposed scholars tell us the Constitution is more of a suggestion than a commandment, and, of course, “open to interpretation.” (The Constitution was designed to be living but this means it can be amended not re-“interpreted.”) Why do they do this? So they can do the interpreting. This is a game that has been being played for decades. When reality gets in your way, doubt reality. Reality has long been considered subservient to ideologies; not the other way around. Everything is considered moldable today, from history to human nature itself. If you notice, despite the fact that these scholars believe reality can never be objectively deciphered, they never become skeptics. One would think if reality is such a foggy haze that humans can never objectively decipher, we would be forever unsure and doubtful of the world around us. Instead, such new scholars charge right on, asserting absolute knowledge - “interpreting” history, law, reality for you. Notice that with the Koran that they don’t become skeptics over what the “interpretation” of the Koran is. Even though interpretations are generally regarded as not right or wrong, and they insist the Koran is too “profound” to understand, they announce that the terrorists most definitely had the “wrong interpretation.” The Koran is mostly incomprehensible, but apparently they have the magic ability to understand its true meaning and dictate it to us. (Notice also, today, that anyone who says the Koran is peaceful is accepted, regardless that they have usually never read the Koran, but those who challenge it are always required to be held to the standard of the un-defined title of “expert!”) This attack on objectivity stems from the root, from the philosophical level, specifically on ideas of existence and consciousness. The ideas that have permeated academia for decades have been the notion that reality isn’t real; that reason is impotent in understanding reality. This philosophical foundation was formalized into an official philosophical system by Immanuel Kant. Allow me to re-emphasize the definitions of some terms. Reason is the process by which man absorbs sensory data and uses it to understand the world around him. It doesn’t matter how big or small the knowledge is - from understanding what a “cat” or “dog” is, by using your own five senses and rational mind, to understanding any elaborate science. Logic is the method by which man processes that knowledge, making accurate, or rather non-contradictory, identifications of reality. (Forgive me for being redundant; it is only for explanation purposes). Mysticism is to develop a conclusion or understanding of the world through some non-sensory means, such as a person who believes in God based on faith. Kant attacked reason (and, therefore, reality) from the inside: by re-defining it. Kant said that reason was “a priori,” that is to say “without experience.” How can man have any knowledge, understanding or enlightenment while void of reality? Kant made the most offensive attack on reason possible: smearing it by defining reason as mysticism, i.e. to develop knowledge with no sensory data, i.e. no evidence This is why academic elites are unabashed in dismissing reality, history, and the obvious in front of your eyes in favor of their bizarre ideologies. Attacking reality doesn’t seem awkward or illogical to them; it seems sophisticated - the very definition of reason. Reality is an ever-changing and contradictory flux, apt to be whatever they say it is. Kant laid the groundwork for full-scale, institutionalized propaganda. This is the same game being played with the Koran. Their hysterics about its profundity and the “interpretations” of it are not meant to enlighten but confuse you. They want you to regard the text of the Koran as moldable, confusing, subjective - not because it is but because they don’t want you to understand what is written in plain language in front of you. I propose they do it for one reason and one reason only: so you don’t get too close to understanding just how hateful the Koran is. The more a person knows about the Koran, I have found, the more they regard it as evil. There is one thing in the way of their schemes: your rational mind. While thwarting everyone’s eyes away from the obvious, their enemy is that one person who insists on facts and demands evidence. Therefore, they need to make you doubt your own mind, i.e. your ability to reason. In the case of the Koran, this means your ability to read a book correctly. Therefore they infuse waves of doubt and confusion over anyone trying to read to understand the Koran. “You are no Islamic scholar!” they will shout at you. “The Koran is so profound!” they cry. “It has so many commentaries and notes!” Don’t even bother to read it, you will not understand it. These are all the hysterics of intellectual snobs trying to create an inferiority complex in others. When these methods of don’t work, they can always resort to ad hominems: calling you an “idiot,” “moron,” etc. Today, it is not just limited to a select few who want to insult you: it is popularly accepted to call anyone who questions Islam a “bigot” or “ignorant.” They have “educated” people from birth that to challenge Islam is evil. They have raised an entire army of people, foaming at the mouth, ready to pounce on any of those who open their mouths. Those who want to confuse others about the Koran have gotten very good at it. They do so in the most effective way possible: by appealing to your respect for intelligence. Whenever you cite a verse in the Koran, without skipping a beat, they will cry that you, “Took the verse out of context.” This appeals to people’s sense of having a full, conceptual of understanding of any given thing. If you notice though, they never actually put the verse in context. This is not an appeal to conceptual understanding, as it seems to be, but is used to make you believe that somehow, someway, the verses around a particular verse will change said verse’s identity. They will also tell you whenever you quote a verse from a Koran that you have the “wrong translation.” On some level this appeals to people’s sense of those who take the time to learn another language. But it is ridiculous: there are many, many translations of the Koran, all of which say essentially the same thing. These are nothing but silly, awkward, and for some unknown reason - often effective - method of controlling information as to control thought. One would think if Muslims were so proud of their religion, they would be encouraging people to read their holy text to prove its righteousness; not thwarting people away from it at every step. People who are just want nothing more than for others to take a good, hard look at them - not generalizing them with others or brushing them aside. An innocent person being charged with murder, for instance, will want and demand all the facts of the case to come out, to shine as much light on the case as possible, and to be allowed to take the stand to make his or her case. The unjust person seeks to manipulate and deceive others, always trying to stop people from taking too hard of a look. For an example, see the lying, deceptive ways of any criminal. So let’s do just that: shine pouring light onto the Koran to see what it is. We are going to give Islam what it frankly does not deserve: the nicety of a trial. In order to judge Islam, I did what most Islam apologists and most Muslims (many of whom are illiterate) did not do: I read the Koran. The Koran is considered the written word of Muhammad’s teachings, who was inspired by the angel Gabriel. According to the introduction to the Koran I read in paper back, Muhammad was born into a poor family but lived in a wealthy city. He grew up without a father and ended up marrying a rich widow. The Koran however was written down by others as he could not read nor write. The Koran is broken up into “Suras,” which are like books in the Bible or chapters in a book. There are 114 Suras and over 6100 verses. The Suras range in size from as small as 4 verses to as many as 286. For the most part, the larger Suras are at the beginning and they get progressively smaller until the very short Suras at the end. This is how the very beginning of the Koran starts out. Sura 2:3-6, which falls on the first page of the Koran: The very beginning of the Koran starts out with stating that nonbelievers are wrong, wrong, wrong and believers are good, good, good. It doesn’t say what the believers should do - there are no principles, values or morals laid out - just that non-believers are wrong. However what really shocked me was when I got to this verse: Quite frankly, this is about all you will find in the Koran: hatred aimed at infidels, threats against them, and calls to fight them. Indeed, upon reading the Koran, I could not help but notice how much of it is nothing but vitriolic hatred aimed at infidels. I could give you, the reader, an eyeballed estimation of how much of it is nothing but hatred at infidels, but I would not expect you to take my word for it. Going through the Koran and summing up every single verse to get a percentage would be way too cumbersome. However, I thought of a way to get across to you, my reader, a warranted percentage: I could take a random sampling of verses from the Koran and make projections from there. Now this is not some sort of literary review, not that the Koran is complex enough to warrant a literary review. I performed the study I did, at first, solely to get a percentage of just how much of the Koran deals with nothing but threats and insults thrown at infidels: that they are dumb, blind, stupid, thankless, liars; that they will have boiling water poured on them; that they will be sent to hell where they will be choked with food and without any friends; that Allah hates them; and also loves those who fights against them. I originally did a small study. I wanted at least 30 samples because statistically, so as long as there are 30 samples, the central limit theorem applies, i.e. the sampling is large enough to be statistically significant. I tried to think of a fair way to pick samples. Had I gone through and just pointed to verses, I likely would have gotten accused of cherry picking. So I took verse 10 from randomly chosen Suras. I did this to show I was not picking one verse over another. You can read the verses I took along with commentary regarding what context the verse is in and why I assigned it to the category I did here. I was really quite pleased with the results: I felt they provided a nice broad overview of the Koran and even captured one good verse! It even hit some of the bigger but smaller aspects of the Koran - the fact that it mentions Noah's Ark many times (where it gleefully describes how the infidels drowned); that it thinks infidels are utterly thankless; that Allah actually makes nonbelievers not believe, etc. These were the results 18/34 (52.9%) - over half - of these random verses is vitriol aimed at infidels - that they are evil, stupid, thankless, that they will end up in eternal torment, hell, that they have been and will be destroyed, and God loves those who fight against them. 6/34 (17.6%) Deal with Allah 5/34 (14.7%) Deal with believers 4/34 (11.8%) Deal with Day of Judgment or Day of Doom 1/34 (3.4%) ... is a good verse! (Do not steal from the poor / Give to the poor) However, upon some contemplation I decided that my study could be done better. Perhaps there might have been some bias by only picking verse 10 from the verses. I also felt there was at least one major theme that was ignored in my sampling: how Islam treats women. The confidence interval I ended up with was that one could be 95% confident that the percentage of hatred of infidels in the Koran was between 36.1% and 69.7%. That really is not very tight. So I did a bigger study. This time I wanted to have at least 200 samples. I tried to think of the most diplomatic way to take random verses. I could go in and take every 30th verse, giving me approximately 200 verses. But that would skip over several Suras as many of them only have 5 - 9 verses in them. So I took the random sampling much in the same way that our Congress is set up. I took one verse from each Sura, thereby representing each Sura. I took the verse right in the middle. That gave me 114 verses. I wanted about 86 more. So then I went through and took every 70th verse. This naturally gave the larger Suras more of a representation. I ended up with 201 verses. And, after hours of work, the results are in: they are exactly the same. For the percentage I was most interested in, how much of the Koran is nothing but hatred at infidels, it was exactly at 53%. I was also quite happy that this sampling captured several verses about women. The confidence interval was also much better this time, with 95% confidence, we can say the proportion is somewhere between 45.8% and 59.6%. You can read the verses I took, my commentaries, and the calculation of the confidence interval here. Here are the results of my larger study: 106/201 (52.7%) is hatred aimed at infidels, defined as *Threats towards infidels either in the after life or this life *Degrading infidels by calling them evil, stupid, blind, deaf, liars, thankless, etc. *Calls to fight against them. *Verses that say "except the believers" when wishing death on nonbelievers were counted as hatred since avoiding death is not a positive to believers *The threat or insult can be aimed at infidels in general or any specific infidel. 50/201 (24.9%) Deals with believers, defined as *Mentioning them *Saying they are righteous *Saying they will get good things *Any mentions of one of the prophets was snuck into this category too 23/201 (11.4%) deal with Allah, *Who he is *That he is almighty *Any of his creations 10/201 (5%) deal with the Day of Doom or the Day of Judgment *Either the Day of Doom when destruction is sent on the earth or *Day of Judgment when all are judged before Allah *Any message pertaining to how God records what men do was assigned this category 4/201 (2%) are anti-woman *Two are in reference to beating a woman *Two deal with marrying women or slaves where women have no choice and seem self serving to Muhammad or men only 4/201 (2%) deal with giving to the poor in some way 2/201 (1%) deal with some kind of Muslim custom or etiquette, for instance *How to divorce your wife 1/201 (0.5%)disapproves of a man who murdered someone, but only because it was for the wrong reason to kill someone. 1/201 (0.5%) actually says it is OK for people to have their religion while Muslims have theirs Over 50% of the Koran deals with nothing but hatred aimed at infidels. You will notice Allah is mentioned a lot, as well as the goodness of believers and the Day of Doom/Judgment, the former being a day when the Koran gleefully exclaims that Allah will send destruction to the earth and destroy the infidels. Notice how much of the Koran that deals with not just infidels but with the theme of believers verses nonbelievers, setting up believers as holy, righteous, almost perfect human beings and nonbelievers not just as wrong but as wretched scum. If you add up the number of verses that deal with infidels, believers, Allah, and the Day of Judgment/Doom that percentage is a full 94%. This is really the only thing in the Koran, as the Koran itself readily admits: "... This book is no other than a warning and a clear Koran, To warn whoever liveth; and, that against the Infidels sentence may be justly given." Sura 36:69 You may notice that details outlining Muslim customs and etiquette do not take up much room in the Koran. In fact, Ramadan, from what I can tell, is only mentioned once in the Koran. You can see how seriously Muslims take Ramadan. Now imagine how seriously they take the rest of the 94% of the Koran. There really is not much more in the Koran besides threats of doom and destruction against nonbelievers. There is no real moral system outlined in the Koran, with the exception of allowing men to sleep with their slaves, beat their wives and there is an occasional “give to the poor.” Indeed, most of the moral guidance given in the Koran is not a restraint on humans but permission to do what they want - mostly for men to do what they want. The only arguable “good” verses in the Koran are commandments to give to the poor, which according to the study I did accounts for about 2% of the Koran. Some may argue that giving to the poor is a good thing. Perhaps. But, in the Koran, it is couched inside commandments of NOT getting wealthy. And if this isn’t malicious enough, the Koran’s wish for people who have wealth: The Koran is hostile to any kind of wealth, pleasure or success on this earth. Man is meant to remain humble with only modest earnings. How can business, technology, art, music, or any other form of wealth or happiness develop out of this? Those who “purchase this present life” like this, according to Islam has done so at the price of the afterlife. Thus my charge of creating poverty against Islam. Given Muslims, Muslims who follow the Koran anyway, are forbidden any pleasure while on this earth, death must feel like liberation to them. After reading the Koran, I really did not think it mentioned women that much. However, upon going back over it, there is one obvious theme: the Koran is very self-serving to Muhammad and men when it comes to having access to women. Indeed, it promises men young virgins in heaven with “supple breasts” and “large brown eyes,” but what about the women? Sura 66:1, I believe, shows not only the self-serving nature of the Koran for Muhammad but the entire purpose of the Koran itself: Note 1 from Sura 66 further clarifies this verse: Muhammad had told his wife that he would stop having sex with a slave. However, he came back to tell her that he is allowed because Allah does not forbid it. Hence, to hell with her wishes! Indeed, the Koran gives men full right to have sex with female slaves and their allotted four wives: Thus my charges of rape and slavery against Islam. I propose the Koran is nothing but a rationalization: Muhammad’s rationalization to do whatever he wants in the name of “religion.” A verse in the Koran that needs no further comment: What has a tendency to shock most people about Islam and the Koran is its belief in predestination, which you may notice in the study I performed. Allow me to introduce you to one of the biggest theological contradictions of all time. The Koran is filled with threat after threat thrown at nonbelievers. And yet the Koran says that it is Allah who causes people to believe or not believe. So, if God and God only can cause people to not believe, then why all the threats? What good will they do? Whose fault is it that they are nonbelievers and why should they be punished for something out of their control? (I argued that the Koran had an identity, i.e. a specific meaning; I never promised it would make sense.) This belief in predestination is not just mysticism; it is much worse. Not only do men gain knowledge through faith only; it is only some men, and the Koran says it is only a few, are privy to such knowledge. And now the most pressing question: if all the world is to be Muslim, as the Koran commands, but people cannot be converted, how can that happen? There is only one way. Almost the entire Koran is dedicated to delegating to infidels an inferior status. They are called blind, stupid, ignorant. No proof is given of why they should believe; Muhammad performed no miracles for people. When some skeptics asked for proof, the response was: Infidels are accused of being thankless. The Koran says infidels promise that they will believe in God if God relieves them of their affliction, but when God does, they forget him. Infidels mock the prophets when they come to give their message to them. All of this sets up for what the Koran, at heart, is: one long battle cry against infidels. I find it interesting that the Koran is not in chronological order. It was re-arranged, and interestingly enough, most of the downright violent Suras were put at the beginning. Yes, this is straight from the Holy Book of the religion that gets called a “religion of peace.” Muslims are commanded to fight. Only the weak are excused. After fighting, believers have a right to the infidels houses. Thus my charge of oppression against Islam. The Koran is pretty clear on when fighting can stop. Some may say that the Koran says fighting can stop once “peace” is made, which is how the following is watered down in some translations: Ladies and gentlemen, thus my charge of terrorism against Islam. Let me remind you of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Along with the Pentagon (and another plane which never made its destination of the White House as some courageous heroes took it down before it could get there), the Islamic terrorists targeted the twin towers of the World Trade Center: symbols of American wealth and prosperity. I will remind you the reason why the terrorists were willing to kill themselves to kill Americans: they were promised 72 virgins in heaven. The terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001 did not do so in the name of their country or for any demand, such as money or land: they did it openly and proudly in the name of Islam. Ladies and gentlemen, they were not misguided; they were in every way Islamic. Some will insist that my verses were totally lifted out of context. This argument does not have much merit. As you can tell from my study, the “context” of just about all verses in the Koran is a sea of hatred. The other argument usually given is that the Koran does call for violence but only in self-defense. In some translations of the Koran, the phrase “in case of war” or “in case the infidels attack you” is conveniently placed in all calls for violence. This really is nothing more than a blatantly misleading lie. However, assuming it was true: why does the Koran put things in blatantly collectivist terms? Why is it one group, Muslims, only allowed to defend themselves against another group, infidels? The fact is, all hate movements have been marked by this same thing: victimology and collectivism. They convince themselves that they are a victimized, oppressed group of another group - that they are being attacked or held down by another group - then launch a war. It is never specific people who have been hurt by other specific people, but by a broad, generic group of "Jews" or "bourgeois" or "nonbelievers." The Koran is not very unequivocal in stating that enemies as people who threaten your life. Infidels, according to the Koran, are by definition enemies. I asked a Muslim once about Muhammad. Muhammad was obviously a warlord - apparently the very first Islamic terrorist to "HIJACK" the Islam religion. This man I talked to insisted that that Islam was a religion that advocated violence only in self-defense. I asked him if Muhammad fought in self-defense or in aggression. He answered, “both.” So I asked him why Muhammad fought in aggression, perhaps it was a pre-emptive strike against enemies about to strike. And, if it was a pre-emptive strike, I asked him if Muhammad had significant intelligence data to suggest that “enemy” nations were about to attack him. He told me that Allah “in all his infinite wisdom” told Muhammad that these people were his enemies. This is the problem with Islam and this is the problem with blind faith. There are no prescribed rules for war. Whoever is perceived to be an enemy is an enemy. Everything about Islam prepares its people to be fighters. It riles them with hatred. It keeps them poor. Even the “holidays” in Islam trains fighters. The biggest “holiday” in Islam is Ramadan. Instead of feasting and celebrating, Muslims are to sacrifice during the daylight hours for a month. I propose that this is an effective way to train its followers for war. Besides the practical ability to go without food for extended of times, it trains people to accept a tough life. The only place you will see this kind of behavior in America is for various types of basic training. Islam is a fighting ideology with an uncanny hatred for those who don’t believe as they do. But don’t take my word for it. Please, by all means, read the Koran for yourself. This isn’t a matter of clamoring over a few verses or of whether or not some verses contradict other verses in the Koran. This is about the fundamental theme of the Koran, which is: burning hatred of infidels and wishes of death and destruction for them. Any Muslim who picks up the Koran (most of them do not since most Muslims are illiterate) and takes it seriously will at the very least believe infidels are evil and deserving of death. Most will point to the fact that there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and not all of them become terrorists. True, they do not. The problem is not the regular people but the leaders. Most people, anywhere, just accept the major philosophy/religion of their time and usually do not follow or take it very seriously. Please not that it isn’t the poor or ignorant who typically become terrorists but the rich and educated. This is about what Islam is as an ideology. It is philosophy that guides the course of any nation. The dominant philosophy in the Middle East is Islam and that is a problem. Islam is a malignant ideology that creates oppression, poverty, and war wherever it goes. It cannot, by nature, uphold a rational, stable, or progressing society. It will always be there, with its fangs deep in anyone or anything that gets too successful. If we are going to fight terrorism, we need to fight the ideology that inspires terrorism: that root is Islam. Even if we take down every Islamic dictatorship in existence now that harbors and finances terrorists, so as long as this malignant ideology is around, it will inspire its followers to pick up and fight infidels. It took us nearly a half of a century to be willing to call communism itself, as an ideology, evil. We armed ourselves up to our armpits in weapons, fearing the threat from communist nations. Then, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was willing to step up to the plate and challenge communism ideologically. Communism came tumbling down with hardly a fire shot. Like with Islam, for a long time we were told it was “bad people” running the communist countries that was the problem. It was not; like with Islam, the problem is the ideology. I am however more hopeful that people will call Islam evil, as if people can see how communism, which comes in the package of equality and peace, is an evil ideology; they can certainly see how Islam is evil. One would think that “liberals” would be all over Islam. It is the polar opposite of all of their stated values and they have a tendency to think they are enlightened. But, eerily enough, they almost seem to side with Islam; although they go after Christianity with an unusual tenacity. This seems odd, since Islam is by far a more faith-based and hateful religion than Christianity. And, while I disagree with Christianity, it upholds at least a decent, stable moral framework for people to co-exist peacefully. Islam does not. The fact that they speak out against Christianity, allegedly in the name of reason, but not Islam shows that the left is not anti-faith but anti-values. If you notice, leftists didn’t embrace Islam until they realized its potential for terrorism. This speaks volumes. Whether people argue that Islam has to be modernized, secularized (which is just a politically correct way of saying Islam is bad) or eradicated, they all agree: Islam is the problem. I propose that until we are willing to prosecute Islam as a violent religion: our war on terror will never end. The jury is out. May all those with a rational mind judge accordingly.

Thanks

I think you emaild me once about one of my articles ..... were you a President of an Objectivist club in college? And are you a physics/math major or something similar?

Hi- I figured I would introduce myself since I will likely be posting my writing on here for critique in the future. Some guys on this forum know me from Protest Warrior and asked me to come over. Speaking of which, some of you may know that the head of PW are very friendly towards Ayn Rand. Anyway, I'm Amber. I have a "regular" job that pays bills for now but I consider myself a writer. I've written literally 100s of articles. My favorite topics are sex/gender, foreign policy and education. In fact, I put together a pretty solid collection of articles on dating / sex / gender that I would like to get published. My website is at www.amberpawlik.com Comments welcome! I am also very passionate about supporting the freedom movement in Iran, although unfortunately I have not been able to dedicate much time to that lately. I am in the middle of working on an article on Islam. I look forward to posting it! Here is a tease:

A person who pays for their food 75% of the time but steals it the other 25% of the time is not "75% just." They are a criminal and should be thrown in jail. I think all others would agree with me that that is the Objectivist view.

Because if their motivation to be with a person of the same sex is not desire for the same sex but a *hatred* of the opposite sex, then this is immoral. Love should be a healthy lust. As far as why it is immoral, it's because a person isn't pursuing something that is of genuine value to them. There are a lot of immoral reasons to be homosexual, not just this one.

There is not a one-size fits all reason for why people are homosexual. You have to weed out the moral from the immoral. A moral reason to be homosexual is, for whatever reason, you were born biologically attracted to the same sex, and it *would* be of high value to pursue a relationship with him or her. An immoral reason is you learned to hate the opposite sex for some reason. You fear them, despise them, for whatever reason. For instance, a lot of radical socialist lesbians don't hate *men* but *masculinity*, which means: a hatred of ability. They don't *love* women; they hate men. I've read somewhere that 90% of homosexuality in men is due to some external factor: usually they were molested as children. I wouldn't trust any of the "data" coming out today about homosexuality, as there is an agenda at work.

I didn't mind libertarians much (except their moral relativism) until 9/11. When they came out and blamed America, that was it. Libertarians are an absolute threat to liberty. Their weak foreign policy would leave us vulnerable and defenseless to all foreign enemies.