Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Who are the "true" Muslims?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Crow. I'll grant you that may not have been the best choice of media to make my point. This one is closer to it:http://www.livescience.com/15918-safety-911.html

Furthermore, the means of terrorism prevention may be available, but not always adequate. Regardless as to whether law enforcement officials are up to the job or not is not really the topic. As usual, you are deviating the discussion with a straw man argument. The argument as to whether social welfare policies help to swell the numbers of poor is another straw man, and should be taken up on another thread.

 

And while this is not a thread directly addressing the problem of Muslim terror, it is under the topic of: "true Muslims." You state here:

 

 

 Terrorists with guns should be hunted down and killed. Duh.

 

As for the other 999,990,000 Muslims on the planet, we need to figure something out, don't we? Insofar as we're not engaged in an all-out world war right now, I would conclude that we are figuring something out and virtually all Muslims do in fact live in peace with non-Muslims.

 

 What exactly do you mean by, "we need to figure something out...?" Muslims in many places are not even living very peacefully with other Muslims, let alone with non-Muslims. The vast majority live pragmatic and non-confrontational lives as they re-locate to the West. But as we've seem in Europe, when the concentrations of Muslims form their own isolated communities, growing numbers refuse to assimilate and become radicalized in their alienation. The onus is on them to assimilate to their new environment, and if that means being untrue to their faith, then it is for the better. And if being untrue makes them a hypocrite, then maybe they'll be just as so many other people of faith.

 

Uh huh. We couldn't deal with a 20-30 million of them in Iraq. What makes you think we can wipe out 1 billion of them? I personally don't want to pick up the tab for another trillion dollar war thank you very much.

 

 

So, do we hunt them down, as suggested in the first post, or decide that it's not worth the effort, as in the second post? A little contradiction in reasoning?

And I haven't heard your wonderful persuasive argument you claim to have for your jihadi friends; I'm still waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is not a matter of correctness, it is matter of what Muslims think they can get away with based on their numbers and relative power within a society.   Three Stages of Jihad is a 20 minute video

This type of change probably has to take more than a single generation... youth rise up and change their fathers' creed. One would have hoped that Islamic terrorism against the West would get Muslims

Happiness, If the question is "who is consistent" with regard to Islam, the terrorists are most consistent. While there are many passages espousing peace, and in the Arabic language, many passages ar

Crow. I'll grant you that may not have been the best choice of media to make my point. This one is closer to it:http://www.livescience.com/15918-safety-911.html

 

 

From that article:

 

"Overblown threat

Some analysts believe that we are only marginally safer now than we were before, if at all, because the threat of terrorism was extremely low in the first place. The 9/11 attack, they say, was a statistical outlier. The protocols put in place since guard against worst-case scenarios, and energy should instead be spent on more imminent threats.

John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University who has written several prize-winning books on the fight against terrorism, said that each of us has a 1-in-3.5 million chance of getting killed in a terrorist attack each year, and that such a low probability is extremely difficult to further reduce. After all, no amount of effort will ever reduce the chances all the way to zero.

Meanwhile, the danger of other types of violent crimes is much higher; we have a 1 in 2,000 chance of getting murdered in any given year, for example. Mueller argues that excessive federal spending on counterterrorism has detracted from efforts to fight and prevent other violent crimes.

"Law enforcement officers, especially the FBI, were pulled away from dealing with ordinary crime to focus very heavily on terrorism," Mueller said. "Terrorism is a very small risk, and so the fact that we're spending money on that instead of crime, which actually does happen, means that [we're not maximizing our safety] as much as we otherwise would be."

 

Do you even read what you link to? Strike two...

 

Also, I don't think "straw man" means what you think it means...

 

You understand that "news" story on Fox News about isolated Muslim communities in Europe (operating under strict Sharia law) was... complete bullshit, right? Complete made-up crap to make idiots feel more afraid and more hysterical?

 

I think we should hunt down and kill terrorists (insofar as we reasonably can). Not all Muslims are terrorists. In fact virtually all of them aren't.

 

Anyhow, me and my Jihadi FriendsTM are off to bed...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowepistemology,

Your sarcasm is noted, but your argument still falls flat. This item is neither Fox News, nor an animated cartoon:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4092/europe-islamic-fundamentalism

In light of recent history, no other ideology or religion has been at the center of such destruction of human life and property since the Nazi Third Reich. If you haven't heard the news, Muslims are engaged in conflicts against members of their own faith, from Syria, to Iraq, to the government of moderation killing their own people in revolt. Are you denying the video taped beheadings? The Japanese are now targets of the global jihad. How can you claim, "virtually all Muslims" live in peace with non-Muslims? Do you know the meaning of the word, "virtual."

The fact that Europeans are faced with a conundrum today should be a warning that we could be next. Violence in defense of the faith is proscribed in their sacred teachings unambiguously. When any organization uses the institutions of freedoms taken for granted in West, and uses them to destroy that freedom, hard decisions must be made. If we waited to "hunt and kill terrorists" after they commit the acts of terror, the math favors the terrorists. To err on the side of caution could mean we protect our lives, and make apologies later. As draconian as that may sound, I favor the preservation of liberty to the argument that keeping tighter security around Muslim enclaves is unjustified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I say, "virtually all" I suppose I mean about 99.9%.

 

That leaves 1,000,000 of my Jihadi FriendsTM. I doubt I actually have that many such "friends" though.

 

Since other crimes like murder and rape are about 100,000 times more dangerous to Americans right now, we should absolutely not wait until the criminals commit a crime and kill them before the do. Its the only way to be sure.

 

Most likely if you are a Muslim, you are probably a terrorist, or at least you have a much higher propensity to be one  (see above).

 

Of course by these statistics we should also jail every single gun owner in the US, since there's a higher percentage of them committing a crime and also a much more pressing danger to US citizens from "those people".

 

Or, I don't know, maybe we can drop the hysteria and look at terrorism as yet another criminal matter, and prioritize it as such. You know, like the above linked article suggested...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crow,

I really don't see the US in a state of hysteria, as you suggest, but certainly Americans are more aware of the tenets of Islam today than they were before 9-11-2001. Recent events in the news are not going to stop me from filling my tank at convenience stores, owned and often operated by Muslims, and just as likely supplied by international oil suppliers from predominately Muslim nations. There aren't any outbreaks of window-smashing of their stores, although there was some hysteria of this sort immediately following the 9-11 attacks. No mandatory laws for internment camps were established, such as were after the Pearl Harbor attack. And I am not for one moment even suggesting that there ought to be, and you are attempting to distort my opinion, and I think you are able to be mature enough to acknowledge that fact.

Europe is experiencing repeated outbreaks of violence, violence inspired by Muslim organizations. To the fact that Islam is a major world religion whose followers populate vast regions, I am not contesting that, either. But Europe's experience could one day be ours. That's really all I'm saying, and if there is some commentary to be made on how Western nations should best deal with it, I suppose that should be addressed on another thread. I am not an expert on international policing policies.

What strikes me as a sort of intellectual dishonesty is that you seem to refuse to accept the fact that the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the recent beheading of a Japanese national, several Western journalists, and the majority of unrest in the Middle East are largely inspired by a 7th century warrior-king, assumed be God's prophet. If the same allegedly sacred verses inspire people to live pragmatic and productive lives, without a thought to harming others, I'd admit I've been entirely wrong. But the fact that I don't hear enough of these pragmatic and productive Muslims openly condemning these acts of terror leads me to believe they are either in agreement with the less than one percent violent Muslims, or that they are too afraid of their own Muslim brothers to speak out. As you've so often pointed out, there are a helluva lot more non-violent Muslims than there are terrorists. Not a very courageous lot, for a faith that places such emphasis on bravery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What strikes me as a sort of intellectual dishonesty is that you seem to refuse to accept the fact that the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the recent beheading of a Japanese national, several Western journalists, and the majority of unrest in the Middle East are largely inspired by a 7th century warrior-king, assumed be God's prophet.

 

What strikes me as delusional is that you seem to think you magically know what was going on in these killer's heads--and that it was all the same (one-dimensional) thought every single time.

 

But good progress though. You used the word, "largely" to modify your stance somewhat. Keep going. Keep digging into the facts to reveal a large number of factors, political, social, psychological, economic, etc.--and yes, religious. Then you'll find the situation complicated, and the solution even more so. But the great news is that you'll be less frustrated by the response you see by the authorities who are actually charged with protecting our rights and lives, because you'll see a lot more of why they do what they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowepistomology,

Greater progress is possible if we can deescalate the toxic tone of this debate. I am under no delusions about demystifying the mind of a murderer. Some people are maladjusted and homicidal, and seek no rational alternative other than carrying out some murderous act. Case in point: On Thursday November 25, 2014, in Moore, Oklahoma, Alton Alexander Nolen decapitated a 54-year-old woman in broad daylight. I sight this specific case, not that it implicates Muslims, rather that it indeed illustrates the complexity of homicidal maniacs. It appears to be the only recently reported case of decapitation not attributed to a terror organization. However, it does appear from the reports that Nolen claimed to have converted to Islam. By all that I could guess, this is a psycho-killer doing a copy-cat of the recent ISIS decapitation of a Western journalist. What exactly motivates such behavior, I do not pretend to know. But, the common link is the teachings of the Koran. While Islam is the most popular of the world's major religions, it appears obvious that not all of the people of Muslim identity engage in such behavior. Nolen was not born a Muslim, he learned it. No doubt, the media attention of the ISIS decapitation was part of the learning process. As far as I could ascertain, there have been nine or more victims of Western or Japanese nationality beheaded as part of several organized Islamic offensives. Hundreds of casualties in the on-going violence taking place in Syria and Iraq are finalized with decapitation. This tactic, the severing of the head, is proscribed in the Koran, and I don't feel the need to site chapter and verse, but that would not be a problem.

 

When a person is born to devoutly religious family traditions, it is common that that person carries some of those traditions until they reach their own conclusions as to their own participation in their traditional faith. I don't think this is too much of an assumption, although you are entitled to disagree. When the tenets of that religion include taking up violent struggle in defense of the faith, and include various forms of bodily dismemberment, it may have the effect of either causing the religious student to question why such brutal methods are necessary to be a true follower of the faith, or it may have the effect of his/her interpreting it as explicit instructions from God. If that student of faith has religious instructors encouraging him/her to make the supreme sacrifice, you may have the making of a suicidal-homicidal holy warrior. Now, of course I have no magical insight into the mind of such a person. There may be numerous complicating factors of a psychological nature, such as the case of Nolen. But it's quite obvious they are coming from somewhere. There is sufficient evidence that agents of international Islamic terror organizations recruit with a variety of methods, including Imams, the internet, and basically old-fashioned networking. The job of radicalizing a suicidal-homicidal warrior is made so much easier when the family traditions includes seeking guidance in a book that glorifies treachery and mutilation. Such a faith is Islam. I know of no other. If you can put another religion or ideology up to compare with this, one that has been nearly so effective at spreading terror, please let me know.

 

It is my sincere hope that all people of all faiths can live in harmony. And as I've repeated so many times, if such a state of affairs can be achieved only through living a life of hypocrisy to one's faith, then it is best to be a hypocrite, and live the good life. It really isn't any more complicated than starting with abandoning the violent ways of one's ancient, or not so ancient, traditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Also, do you have an data to back up that claim that the welfare state makes people poorer? I mean, it violates my rights and forces me to pay for people I don't want to pay for, but that doesn't mean it causes poorness any more than it causes blindness or scurvy.

Go and read Atlas Shrugged. If you've already read it then reread it because you weren't paying enough attention the first time. Repeat as many times as necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I don't think "straw man" means what you think it means...

You understand that "news" story on Fox News about isolated Muslim communities in Europe (operating under strict Sharia law) was... complete bullshit, right? Complete made-up crap to make idiots feel more afraid and more hysterical?

Is that what "straw man" means?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try to discuss the actions of any deontologist (? Duty-driven person), such as a Christian, with them; ask them why they think and do what they do. If you probe down far enough, you will invariably find a blank, deer-in-the-headlights expression; as if you were asking gibberish. Wherever that lies, they have never asked themselves why they do that. They have taken it as an absolute and run with it for their entire lives.

That's the root of the problem. Islam is a uniquely virulent extension of it, but the real problem is the very concept of a "duty".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

For what it's worth, Hamtramck is the first American city to elect a majority Muslim council.

It's said to be the first majority Muslim City Council not only in Hamtramck but in the entire country.

"I think that sends a message not only to Hamtramck but throughout the region that people want their representation in offices," Miah said.

Although there will be more diversity at the table, they want to make clear the goal of public service stays the the same.

"My concern is to give the people, everybody, equal opportunity and be fair for everybody," said Musa.

"We are going to represent everybody. We are going to serve everybody, Christians, Jewish, Muslims, everybody," said Almasmari.

Can introducing an "I", or individual, into the "collective", or the body politic, have the desired result?, or will we discover that immigration without assimilation amounts to invasion? (*)

 

(*) A "Star Trek: The Next Generation" reference to Huge being sent back to the Borg after being inculcated with the concept of "I" to the collective inundated with the concept "we".

 

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

*** Mod's note: Moved from another topic, to a topic that has a focus on defining what is meant by "Muslim"  - sN ***

On 7/18/2016 at 4:54 PM, softwareNerd said:

A Smurf girl from Pakistan writes an "Open Letter to Newt Gingrich". A cynic would read it as an apologia for Smurfism, or snicker that her U.S. college taught her to play the victim. Nevertheless, I think the letter reflects a genuine emotional even if it is largely ignorant. Many other Smurfs believe their interpretation of Smurfism is peaceful. They worry about being stereotyped. However, they also surely realize that the root of the problem is not those who do the stereotyping (thought these people should desist), but the people who repeatedly demonstrate the stereotype.

I do not think every Smurf must be vocal about this issue. Each individual can make that personal choice. However, when someone writes an article like this one: criticizing people who stereotype, honesty demands that they acknowledge the larger context, at least briefly. Instead, this article is an epitome of how moderate Smurfs talk past their audience.

Some sects in Smurfism focus on individual virtue, and an individual relationship with "God", with no intent to enforce their will on others.  I personally know many Smurfs who are more like Orthodox Smurfs in their adherence to religion in the personal sphere. They have a strong work-ethic and a trader mentality to the greater world. 

I don’t doubt that Smurf Priests and youth groups in these Smurf mosques speak against radicalism and terrorism. However, I think this will be mostly ineffective unless one attacks the underlying issue: the intermingling of mosque and state. Yes, the Smurf Bible has a place where it says not to force religion on people; and some sects run with that. However, there’s no denying that a majority of Smurf-majority countries intermingle the mosque and state. In other words: they enforce Smurfism by point of the sword. 

If the establishment in some Smurf country accepts that religion can be enforced by law (which is true in all the middle-eastern countries, in Pakistan, and in most of the Magreb) some people will take this to the next logical step: which is ISIS and terrorism. Even secular Turkey is slipping back to that mode.  

I sympathize with Smurfs who are stereotyped, but I cannot sympathize with a Smurf who complains about the stereotyping without at least mentioning that they are against the Smurf governments that force religion on people. Note too, that many of these are democratic: Turkey is, Egypt would be more religious if voters had their way, Pakistan is the same. 

If a Smurfism wants to speak to non-Smurfs to push a more secular version of Smurfism, and to complain about stereotyping, I’d like to see them acknowledge that their own countrymen are their primary enemies. I can understand someone saying “I have enough traditional religionists at home trying to force me to do things; please don’t add to my problems by mistaking me for them”. But, to simply talk about the peaceful sects of Smurfism without mentioning the majority traditionalists is to  play victim. As an argument, it does not address the issues of your opposition; instead it simply ignores them. Completely ineffective, except to your own cheer-leaders.

Islam (like Smurfism) is a floating concept.  If it happens to connect with reality, it does so in the same sense that a broken clock is right twice a day.

Edited by softwareNerd
Moved to a more closely-related topic
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2016 at 1:33 AM, New Buddha said:

Islam (like Smurfism) is a floating concept.  If it happens to connect with reality, it does so in the same sense that a broken clock is right twice a day.

Q1. Would you say the same of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism?

Q2. If you would agree that "anarchy" is a floating concept, would you also claim that "anarchist" is a floating concept?

Q3. If "anarchy" is a floating concept, does it imply it is wrong or meaningless to use the term when you are describing this particular floating concept to a third-party?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim denotes people who believe in a particular set of fairy-tales. Islam denotes the totality of religious organizations created by those people.

These are REAL organizations, made up of REAL people. The concepts that refer to them are NOT floating abstractions.

In fact, the concept that refers to that set of fairy-tales (Aqidah, Islamic dogma, Islamic belief system, or, if you want to confuse people, you can just call it "Islam") is also a valid concept.

The only floating concepts, in this whole thing, are Allah and Prophet, which are the imaginary, ill-defined purported sources of the VERY REAL belief system often called simply "Islam" (but more correctly called Islamic belief system), held by the VERY REAL people called Muslims, in the VERY REAL set of organizations (also) called "Islam".

Edited by Nicky
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...