Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Imperialism

Rate this topic


Falafel

Recommended Posts

made a point (Islamic culture, especially the teachings on submission and on jihad rewarded by virgins, being the true root cause of terrorism);

My refutation:

If the above were true, then given the vast amount of Muslims (95%) in the middle east, alot more of them would be lured into "getting 72 virgins", and starting to blow up "infidels" for this goal. Is this true? No, instead, we see terrorists come from a fringe group of people. They come from the other end of the Bell curve.

Another point, terrorists will not go into a mall, blow themselves up, and leave a will saying "Sorry dudes - I was just trying to get to my harems on 7th heaven - no hard feelings". If what you say was the true motivation for killing, we would see those "sorry" terrorists. Is this the case? No. Instead, we see a group of people who are very politically inclined - who have a real political case, and who do their suicidal deeds for political goals.

In fact, the tale of getting 72 virgins and rivers of flowing milk and honey is told to provide insurance about your suicide being in vain. The actual reason why Ahmed decides to blow up a bus is because of some prior unrelated grievance, related to the West's actions. (Or Israel's). (As evidenced in many pre-bomb wills of bombers who talk about how a family member is killed by say, an Israeli, and now they are enacting revenge.)

-------------------

Now I ask you, what evidence do you have as to your assertion that "Islamic culture, especially the teachings on submission and on jihad rewarded by virgins, being the true root cause of terrorism"?

-------------------

Apologies for the "obsenity". Now I know where the line is.

-Falafel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that's more like it. Thanks for choosing to have a rational discussion. :D

If the above were true, then given the vast amount of Muslims (95%) in the middle east, alot more of them would be lured into "getting 72 virgins", and starting to blow up "infidels" for this goal.

There are various degrees to which you can 'belong" to a particular religion. In America, for example, there are many people who consider themselves Christians, but hardly ever attend church at all. Then there are those who go to church only as a matter of custom and formality, without paying serious attention to what the clergy has to say. Others consider religion an important part of their lives, but don't always "act as good Christians." And so on--at the far end of the spectrum are the few true fanatics who (try to) take every sentence in the Bible literally.

The same is true for Islam. The majority of Muslims don't take the teachings of the religion seriously enough to do something as irrational as killing yourself to kill others.

Another point, terrorists will not go into a mall, blow themselves up, and leave a will saying "Sorry dudes - I was just trying to get to my harems on 7th heaven - no hard feelings". If what you say was the true motivation for killing, we would see those "sorry" terrorists.
Of course there are "hard feelings." The Koran tells them to hate the infidels and fight for the "true religion." The hatred for infidels and the prospect of a reward in paradise are not mutually exclusive; what's more, they complement each other in motivating the terrorists. "Ahmed, you should really blow yourself up because these are very, very bad people. But if that isn't reason enough for you, consider those hot houris you'll be making out with in paradise."

Most terrorists are strongly motivated by both of these factors--and both of them are, of course, utterly irrational.

The actual reason why Ahmed decides to blow up a bus is because of some prior unrelated grievance, related to the West's actions. (Or Israel's). (As evidenced in many pre-bomb wills of bombers who talk about how a family member is killed by say, an Israeli, and now they are enacting revenge.)

Yes, I know. But this is still utterly irrational: 1. If they are waging a jihad, they shouldn't be surprised if the infidels fight back; 2. Didn't Israel do the family member a favor by helping him martyr himself in a jihad and get into paradise? 3. If I really wanted to take revenge for some crime, I would try and kill the actual perpetrators of the crime, not some randomly chosen innocent people and myself.

Now I ask you, what evidence do you have as to your assertion that "Islamic culture, especially the teachings on submission and on jihad rewarded by virgins, being the true root cause of terrorism"?

Your actions are shaped by your ideas. As I pointed out many times above, Islamic culture has some bizarrely irrational aspects that encourage "true believers" to kill other people and even themselves. It is only logical to conclude that this irrational death cult is responsible for the irrational and deadly actions of the people who believe in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of Muslims don't take the teachings of the religion seriously enough to do something as irrational as killing yourself to kill others
Implying that if those Muslims were to take the religion seriously enough, they would kill themselves to kill others. Right. I contest that. I contest the implied link you assert that "devout muslim = suicidal bomber." I contest it with the following evidence:

Statement from a devout Muslim site:

1) http://www.thetruereligion.org/usattack.htm

2) [((Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself, then certainly he will be punished in the Fire of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever)), [bukhaaree (5778) and Muslim (109 and 110)]]. <-- Condemnation of suicide in general.

3) {And do not kill yourselves. Surely, Allaah is Most Merciful to you}, [soorah an-Nisaa., Aayah 29]. Verse 29: "And verily, your soul is not your's to take - for only Allah hath given it to you, and only He may take it back."

4) "For he who shall commit suicide, shall never learn of the sweet smell of paradise, but bear witness to the ethereal fires of eternity burning at his flesh." Quote: Prophet Mohammed, 600-700 AD.

Please show counter-evidence to the former statements, showing how suicide is compatible with Islam. I will take a lack of a response as a retraction of your earlier statement.

---------------------------

The Koran tells them to hate the infidels and fight for the "true religion."

Please show where in the Qur'an, along with specific verses and chapters, of the call to kill infidels, in the context of killing infidels by virtue of them simply being infidels.

While you are doing that, bear the following facts:

1) "The Messenger of Allah (saas) said, "One who kills a non-Muslim person under protection (Arabic: dhimmi) will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise." Quote: Prophet Mohammed.

2) "Whoever hurts a non-Muslim person under protection, I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection" Al-Khateb, Verse 19.

In short, Islam is intolerant of false ideas, however it is tolerant of the people who hold to those ideas.

3) Emperical evidence: Historically, during the Imperial Arab raids and the spread of Islam, after the dust had settled, the communities of non-Muslim people continued to survive, and exist to this day. Jews, Christians, Druze, Zorasterians, Circassians and Armenians continue to live in the predominant Muslim middle east.

Please show counter-evidence to the former statements, thereby supporting your original assertion, that the Qur'an supports killing infidels for the sake of solely being infidels. I will take a lack of a response as a retraction of your earlier statement.

-----------------------------

Yes, I know. But this is still utterly irrational: 1. If they are waging a jihad, they shouldn't be surprised if the infidels fight back
:D I am an infidel, I punch you, you declare jihad on me, and punch me back...then perhaps I punch you back still - what is your point? Of course it is to be expected that the enemy fights back. :confused:

Clarify, or drop.

2. Didn't Israel do the family member a favor by helping him martyr himself in a jihad and get into paradise?

Ahh, but by your original statement of

The majority of Muslims don't take the teachings of the religion seriously enough to do something as irrational as killing yourself to kill others
, why would your average family of the suicide bomber think it a "good" thing of their son getting killed. Your prior own statement has nulled your latest one.

3. If I really wanted to take revenge for some crime, I would try and kill the actual perpetrators of the crime, not some randomly chosen innocent people and myself

Ahh, but again:

1) The Israeli government performs actions again and again that are consistentlt injust by demolitions and killings, the people of Israel sanction this action by not doing anything about it, (by paying their taxes), they are therefore part of the problem, and are not innocent.

2) Couple 1 with the fact that ALL Israelis (men and women) MUST serve in the Israeli army for 2 years after graduation from high school by law of the draft, and thus aiding and abetting whatever greivances the Israeli government might perform on Ahmed's family. Again, they are far from innocent.

3) Not all the terrorists are suicidal. Frequently, snipers are blamed for taking out entire checkpoints and soldiers - those are not suicidal. The creed of people who decide to pick up a dynamite belt versus a sniper rifle are the ones who have lost all hope of life, and are paralysed by the death-rife situation, and have nothing left to live for, much like a person paralysed from the neck down might choose to kill themselves. In this case, they are going to take whoever paralysed them down with them.

Morale of the story: Loss of all hope = I have nothing to lose. If im going down, you're going down with me.

As I pointed out many times above, Islamic culture has some bizarrely irrational aspects that encourage "true believers" to kill other people and even themselves

Your entire deduction of Islam, has come forth from the actions of the perpetrators of terrorism. You are deducing the ideology of a fringe group (as we agreed they are from your first statement), and applying it to the whole group. In short, you are saying the properties of a set B, apply to its mother set A, when set B is but a subset of A. This is wrong mathematically, and intellectually. You have yet to show your proof. No new info has been provided. Thus, I re-itterate the original question:

"Now I ask you, what evidence do you have as to your assertion that "Islamic culture, especially the teachings on submission and on jihad rewarded by virgins, being the true root cause of terrorism"?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show counter-evidence to the former statements, showing how suicide is compatible with Islam.

OK, here ya go:

In fact, the tale of getting 72 virgins and rivers of flowing milk and honey is told to provide insurance about your suicide being in vain.
YOU YOURSELF acknowledged that there is a tale of the 72 virgins and you admitted that it's related to suicide. Then, in your very next post, you have the audacity to deny this fact and demand evidence from me!

Quoting Muslims saying some pretty things won't do. The Taliban themselves shed their share of crocodile tears on the very day of 9/11/01. I never said that Islam was consistent; in fact, I asserted its irrationality. Irrational people regularly say one thing one time and another thing another time. That's why they're irrational! If you say "Kill Jews!" and the next moment you say "I condemn the killing of Jews," you still have said "Kill Jews!"

I will take a lack of a response as a retraction of your earlier statement.

Listen buddy, my statements are retracted when I say they are retracted, not when you declare they are. The only statement I retract is the following:

Thanks for choosing to have a rational discussion.

Which means that I'm done talking to you. Go post your terrorist apologies elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should probably elaborate on my previous post, in case anyone isn't entirely clear on the reasons why I singled out that particular statement as the most ridiculous one made in this thread. It is wrong on many levels. Take just the first part:

Islam is intolerant of false ideas
Pretty much everyone is intolerant of ideas that they hold to be false--but if, as in the case of all religionists, one's grounds for holding an idea to be true or false is simply that they wish it were true or false, then one's ideas will not correspond to reality--i.e., they will be false. So, if Islam really were intolerant of false ideas, then Muslims would have to drop their belief in Allah and become advocates of reason (which is the only means by which one can know if an idea is true or false).

Now, take the statement as a whole:

Islam is intolerant of false ideas, however it is tolerant of the people who hold to those ideas.

This is one of the most insidiously evil ideas ever spread by the preachers of altruism. It is the claim (common to almost all religionists, and altruists in general) that one should "hate the sin, but love the sinner." This represents a complete division of mind and body, fact and value. You cannot actually judge a person's actions without judging the person who acts--that would be impossible to implement consistently--but to the extent that one tries, one has to ignore the cause of those actions: the choice of the person who acted. Blanking out this fact is an act of willful evasion. And the logical gap involved requires one ultimately to make such absurd claims as that they "love" the sick bastard they just saw on the news who raped a ten-year-old girl and then bashed her skull in with a hammer. After all, presumably there are no qualifications on Jesus' commandment to love everyone.

Or, in this case, it requires Falafel (if he's going to be consistent in his claim) to be "tolerant" of the "fringe" group of Muslims who view murder as a dictum of their religion. (And yes, I use the word "murder" intentionally--this discussion never should have turned to suicide, since that's not what's relevant about what so-called "suicide" bombers are doing. I couldn't give a shit less if these jack-asses kill themselves, my problem is that they're taking other people with them.)

There's much more I could say about what's philosophically wrong with Falafel's claim. But I'll leave it at this: no one here is claiming that all Muslims are equally morally bad--some are mixed cases, and some are pure evil (for instance, no one here would equate Shirin Ebadi with the 9/11 hijackers). But, insofar as a person consistently practices Islam, they are evil. Incidentally, this goes for Christianity as well: the consistent practice of Christianity (and altruism in general) leads ultimately to Communism--and the consistent practice of Communism leads ultimately to the slaughter of whole continents. To excuse altruism in general on the grounds that the Communists are a "fringe group" that don't really represent the group as a whole is to sanction the very acts one labels as an irrelevant "fringe group." I would say that the same goes for similar attempts at excusing Islam on the grounds that the fundamentalist terrorists are a fringe group. In other words, I agree completely with CF that Falafel is a terrorist apologist, and if he doesn't retract some of his claims I would recommend his immediate removal from the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Ive missed alot. Ok, lets see:

YOU YOURSELF acknowledged that there is a tale of the 72 virgins and you admitted that it's related to suicide. Then, in your very next post, you have the audacity to deny this fact and demand evidence from me!
True, that I said the tale of 72 virgins is related to suicide. But where did I say that they were related to Islam? In fact, I have shown that it is anti-Islamic to be suicidal. So what is your beef?

And Geez - temper temper!

I never said that Islam was consistent; in fact, I asserted its irrationality. Irrational people regularly say one thing one time and another thing another time.

Sure religion is irratinal. But it can be consistently irrational. For example, christians believe in this irrational notion of "god". God this god that. What if I were to say that god is a pink elephant and Jesus was its daughter. Irrational? Sure. Consistent with Christianity's irrational beliefs? No. So no chrisitian would believe it.

So that last point of your is mute. And where are your counter claims, and counter evidence - which is the hallmark of rational conversation? You asked for a rational conversation, and I gave you one hard core. Judging by the fonts you used, I think you have snapped over something silly. Calm down.

As for you ending the "rational" conversation, im afraid you cant do that. With your attitude, it never really started.

-Falafel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Ryan,

So, if Islam really were intolerant of false ideas, then Muslims would have to drop their belief in Allah and become advocates of reason (which is the only means by which one can know if an idea is true or false).
Very true. BUT... the context of that quote, was showing how tolerant the religion is Islam is towards other ideas besides itself. The context started CF wrongly saying that:

The Koran tells them to hate the infidels and fight for the "true religion."

To which, after backing it up with evidence, I said:

Islam is intolerant of false ideas, however it is tolerant of the people who hold to those ideas.
The meaning here, is that Islam is intolerant of the religions which were not Islam, like Christianity, Judaism, what have you. However, it does not say to be intolerant of the people who hold such different religions. It says quite the contrary in fact, as I have already shown. This is the scope of the context, which you have taken it out of.

So once again: Islam says kill infidels. Answer: No, under Islam, killing infidels is not justified. That is the context.

Or, in this case, it requires Falafel (if he's going to be consistent in his claim) to be "tolerant" of the "fringe" group of Muslims who view murder as a dictum of their religion.

What do you mean you want me to be "tolerant" of the fringe groups of muslims who view murder as a dictum of their religion? Just what do you want me to tolerate about them? And please show how/where you got that from. I want to see the logical (illogical?) process by which you came up with that.

I agree completely with CF that Falafel is a terrorist apologist, and if he doesn't retract some of his claims I would recommend his immediate removal from the board.

After you define a terrorist apologist, and back it up with your claim as to why I am one, (coz it doesnt exactly seem like a complement), list the claims you wish I would retract, so I can take a look at them, and see your line of irrational *cough* *cough* I mean, rational thought.

-Falafel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...