Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
mdegges

Islamic Hatred

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

For your second point: the chair only exists if God wills it.  If you pray hard enough, existence will change to suit your whims.  This, specifically, is the primacy of consciousness and it's present in every single variety of mysticism in the world.

 

You can only take this argument so far. Religionists believe a consciousness ('God') created reality- he created the sky, plants, animals, oceans, humans, etc. But did he create chairs? Or closets? Or ice cube trays? Or HDTV? No.. men created all of those things. 'God' just laid the foundation.

 

Also, I wonder if the above is an outdated understanding of prayer. Don't most people believe that God can only help in the 'spiritual world' - meaning he can't change physical reality? (Obviously there are problems with this- but it's an easy explanation for questions like "why didn't god save my little sister from leukemia?") Anyways, that's the view I learned throughout my childhood. Prayer is meant to get you closer to God, and to affect spiritual change within yourself- it can't be used to affect physical changes.

 

For the first part: the primacy of consciousness rejects existence, not necessarily as illusory (although this is a frequent assertion) but as trivial.  It doesn't matter if you succeed or fail, prosper or suffer; it'll all work out when you're dead.

 

The belief is that life does matter. What you accomplish on earth determines where you spend the rest of eternity. How is that trivial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only take this argument so far. Religionists believe a consciousness ('God') created reality- he created the sky, plants, animals, oceans, humans, etc. But did he create chairs? Or closets? Or ice cube trays? Or HDTV? No.. men created all of those things. 'God' just laid the foundation.

True. 

 

 

The belief is that life does matter. What you accomplish on earth determines where you spend the rest of eternity. How is that trivial?

Excellent point; trivial is an inaccurate and sloppy description.

 

Mysticism asserts that, instead of making yourself happy in life, what matters is happiness in death.  This is accomplished in life by pleasing the mysterious forces and obeying their edicts.

In this way, ambition is usurped by compliance, which devalues life to the status of the trivial.  (a chore)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Dawkins approached the subject recently, on twitter: "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though."

 

 

Needless to say, most of the people who replied or reported on this decided that this factual statement is racist.

 

A pertinent video, explains the reason for this fact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU

 

I was just today thinking how dumb is this viewpoint. Are terrorists going to become easier or harder to stop if they try to base more of their operations here in the US?

Harder. Most definitely harder. Sorry for digging up an old post, but I just couldn't resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what a small world it is.

 

The video Nicky posted mentioned Hamid Al-Ghazali whom I was unfamiliar with, so I went for the basics at Wikipedia.  As I was reading about this influential muslim philosopher and his rejection of the ancient greeks I thought to myself that this guy sounds like a counterpart to St, Augustine among the christians.  Reading further through the article then reveals that Ghazali was a predecessor of and influence upon Augustine!  Without al-Ghazali Augustine would not have been as terrible as he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all Muslims believe in Jihad (physical acts of violence against nonbelievers)- they're not ticking time bombs waiting to go off. Similarly, not all Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin- not all of them believe in harming gay people.

If one doesn't follow their religious text, what makes them a part of that religion? Just curious.

 

All faith is the antithesis of reason, but is virulently clear that Islam is a far greater danger. Why, you ask? Because its religious text directly promotes violence against others. Jihad is a part of the Qu'ran. A Muslim cannot separate that aspect of their religious text from themselves, or they have, by rational thinking and principles, determined it to be immoral. Those who have rejected jihad have escaped the dangers of all-consuming faith and mysticism that come to those who refuse to make a single exception to the tenants of their religion.

The difference with Christianity is that nowhere in the book that Christians follow (the New Testament), does it condone harming gay people (or anyone else, for that matter) for any reason. Many people quote the Old Testament, but the whole point of "Jesus dying on the cross", according to Christians, was to absolve humanity of having to suffer from the dogmatism of the "old laws". It's these "old laws" that promoted stoning, etc., not the New Testament.

Does the New Testament condemn homosexuality as a sin? Yes: 1 Corinthians 6:9. But it also does it in the same breath as condemning drunks and people who use foul language.  Furthermore, "that one believes homosexuality is a sin" (or "that one believes drunkenness or using foul language is a sin") does not mean that they want to harm gay people (or drunks, or people who use foul language).

 

Edited by Axmann8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested to get this community's take on Zuhdi Jasser.  He's a former Navy officer, doctor, and devout Muslim who has spent his free time for the last few years talking publicly about religious reform.  He considers Islam compatible with the principle of individual rights, and though his point of view is probably very much in the minority, I've never heard someone who gives me more hope for the future of the world's second largest religion.

 

Here's one of the debates posted on his YouTube channel:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10ZHq_Sp3YE

 

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He considers Islam compatible with the principle of individual rights, and though his point of view is probably very much in the minority, I've never heard someone who gives me more hope for the future of the world's second largest religion.

...   ...   ...

What do you think?

In the long run, change has to come from within: from people who consider themselves muslims, but drop parts of the muslim ideology. This process started many years ago, in colonial times, when muslims were exposed to modernity. Muslims who belonged to the local elites were educated in westernized schools, studying Shakespeare and Byron. Many members of these elites broke traditional customs -- e.g. regarding women's dress, drinking, and even laws on inheritance. A few muslim scholars began to question traditional thinking. As expected, the first wave of such intellectual attacks  accepted the Quran as absolute, but by questioned Quranic interpretation and non-Quranic hadith. 

 

Post-colonial time, Islam has seen a resurgence. Saudi oil is one reason: this was a country of primitives, who were never true colonials, and thus never absorbed modern ideas. Oil meant that the worst of Islam now had funds. Secondly, post-colonial countries were typically run by dictators who used nationalism as their main ideology. Over time, these dictators added Islam as a supporting ideology. In the case of Iran, the intellectually bankrupt dictator was replaced by a new -- Islamic -- dictator.

 

It is likely that some other Muslim country will try strict political Islam. However, there's also a decent chance that a few will try Islam-"lite" politics. We've seen some backlash against Islamic politics in Turkey and Egypt... some in Tunisia as well. If a secular dictator arises, it might simply be back to square one. However, if the Islamic party stays in power, allowing a few compromises to the secular opposition, it can roll the ball in the right direction. Other than these, Morocco is the other place where there's light, because they still respect the king, and because he seems to be managing a slow transition. There are also non-Muslim countries outside the middle-East: Kosovo, central-Asia, Indonesia, Malaysia, that might show the way toward a more modern Islam.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one doesn't follow their religious text, what makes them a part of that religion? 

Going to a mosque every once in a while, eating halal food, that kind of thing. It's the same as being in any group, but not following some of the stupider rules. It's no different than with most Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to a mosque every once in a while, eating halal food, that kind of thing. It's the same as being in any group, but not following some of the stupider rules. It's no different than with most Christians.

Ahh... "Socially Muslim".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As expected, the first wave of such intellectual attacks  accepted the Quran as absolute, but by questioned Quranic interpretation and non-Quranic hadith.

 

 

 Yeah, that's what Jasser does too.  He also refers to Christianity as having taken 1790 years to come to appreciate the need for the separation of church and state, implicitly giving more credit to the religion itself for the founding of the U.S. than I'm comfortable with, but making the point that he wants Islam to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Math Bot

I am not going to read all three pages of this, however I will say this : I think it is entirely rational to think all devout Muslims in the modern world are either criminally evasive, or completely ignorant of what their religion actually says.  The first would require a completely irrational level of evasion that disqualifies one from being considered as a reasonable, respectable person.  The latter requires either complete evasion anyway, or for one to be mentally challenged in some way. 

I have no hatred for the mentally challenged, but I do loathe those that practice such levels of evasion.  There is no way anyone that takes this religion seriously can be considered a reasonable person, or reasonably be ignorant of its horrendous tenants, unless they choose to evade them, refuse to learn anything about the faith, live under a rock, or have brain damage.

Very young kids I could maybe allow as an exception...

By the way, there is no reasonable comparison between Muslims and Christianity in this regard.  Christians can be respectable people in modern times.  While their religion has a great many barbaric tenants, it is nothing on Islam.  Also, there are very few Christians constantly committing gross crimes in the name of the religion, and openly pointing out that Christianity is fully in support of such barbarism. 

It is somewhat reasonable for a Christian to be a Christian without being aware of the worse articles of ones faith, but there is no reasonable way for a Muslim to be both devout *and* unaware of the beastly, barbaric, savage nature of his/her religion.  It is completely ridiculous to draw any comparison between modern Christians and Muslims in this respect. 

Edited by Math Bot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Math Bot

You don't offer a single argument or reason.

That is because it is blindingly obvious that any Muslim that cannot see that they are supporting rampant barbarism, is guilty of massive evasion.  If you do not accept this obviously true premise, then I am quite simply amazed.  If you accept the premise, but do not think the rest follows, then I doubt you understand Islam, or the issues at stake here.

How can you not see how monstrous Islam is, or that no reasonable person could in modern times be ignorant of this?  Especially those that claim allegiance with it?  What is wrong with you people?!

Edited by Math Bot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you not see how monstrous Islam is, or that no reasonable person could in modern times be ignorant of this?  Especially those that claim allegiance with it?  What is wrong with you people?!

"Obvious" is not an argument or reason. That's what's "wrong" here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is because it is blindingly obvious that any Muslim that cannot see that they are supporting rampant barbarism, is guilty of massive evasion.  If you do not accept this obviously true premise, then I am quite simply amazed.  If you accept the premise, but do not think the rest follows, then I doubt you understand Islam, or the issues at stake here.

How can you not see how monstrous Islam is, or that no reasonable person could in modern times be ignorant of this?  Especially those that claim allegiance with it?  What is wrong with you people?!

 

You assume others are following your line of thought.  People generally pick and choose what to accept and what not to accept, or even write off what they think is wrong as "parables" and such.   You can just as easily ask the same thing of Christians with what is in the Old Testament, the Crusades, or such classics as the many ways you can take a wife, and call it all monsterous.  Time from the worse events and Western "smoothing of the rough edges" has helped Christianity this way.  Most christians today wouldn't go for any of that but it is part of the text and history. 

 

Bascially, you are expecting reason from someone who did not use it in the first place.  This is a given since a lack of reason is required to join a religion - Faith is the definition of using lack of proof as a point of pride.  After that they can piece together a belief system based on whim or authority in any way they want.

Edited by Spiral Architect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All faith is the antithesis of reason, but is virulently clear that Islam is a far greater danger. Why, you ask? Because its religious text directly promotes violence against others.

 

This is true (Islam is the most dangerous major religion), but for the wrong reasons.

 

The Bible directly advocates violence, as well, especially the Old Testament (and presumably, by extension, the Torah); if that were the cause of Muslim violence then we should see the same behavior from the other Abrahamic religions, as well.

I have an alternative theory:

 

Muslims are the most dangerous mystics because their philosophy has remained essentially the same, since the medieval ages.  It has remained the same because of the concept of Tawhid, which specifically prohibits any analysis of God.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawhid

 

I've been doing some research and I'm convinced that Tawhid is the actual reason why Muslims cannot conceptually leave the dark ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference with Christianity is that nowhere in the book that Christians follow (the New Testament), does it condone harming gay people (or anyone else, for that matter) for any reason.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2010:34-10:34&version=KJV

 

Many people quote the Old Testament, but the whole point of "Jesus dying on the cross", according to Christians, was to absolve humanity of having to suffer from the dogmatism of the "old laws".

Are you kidding me?

Are you telling me that it's even close to valid that God, the Almighty, the Holiest of Holies and the Creator of the entire cosmos- could up and decide to change the rules halfway through human history?

Furthermore, do you know how many times the Bible's been rewritten throughout history?  Let's say we assume that the New Testament has no violence and that it makes perfect sense for an omniscient and omnipotent being to change its *HIS* mind- ever- what do you think the New Testament looked like when it was originally written?

 

Check your premises.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
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...