Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Koran Riots

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Newsweek sparks global riots with one paragraph on Koran

AT LEAST nine people were killed yesterday as a wave of anti-American demonstrations swept the Islamic world from the Gaza Strip to the Java Sea, sparked by a single paragraph in a magazine alleging that US military interrogators had desecrated the Koran.

[...]As unrest gathered pace, Dr Rice issued an appeal: “I want to speak directly to Muslims in America and throughout the world. Disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States. Disrespect for the Holy Koran is abhorrent to us all.

Speak for yourself, Secretary Rice. It is the appeasement of these bloodthirsty savages that should be abhorrent to us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I was going to make my own thread but Ill just go with yours)

Newsweek Started a fire storm with the story that US Interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay.

16 were killed in protests in Afghanistan with 100's injured.

And of course Muslim clerics threaten holy war against the United States.

It turns out that Newsweek got it wrong and they apologize. So?

Lets put aside the obvious reaction of why is American News so anti-American.

The reaction in the Middle east is brutal. Islomo-fascist savages running in the streets killing one another is somehow an attempt to make me ashamed of my Country?

Its little to me if some GI flushed a copy of that blood dipped refuse. Their reaction only proves they are insane, not that America did anything wrong.

[Edited to remove bolding in entire post.]

Edited by Groovenstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States. Disrespect for the Holy Koran is abhorrent to us all."

So is it illegal to Disrespect the Koran now?

I am going to jail. LOL

[Again, to remove bolding.]

Edited by Groovenstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has the right to force me to respect the Koran.

CF has it right. We should not be enabling these bloodthirsty savages in any way.

The Koran has become an excuse for their heinous acts.

By saying what she said, Condi Rice is just extending her multiculturalist attitudes. So, so wrong.

Edited by Yes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not in anyones interest to unnecessarily agrevate the Arab population or the Muslim population as a whole. It does not make me safer when you use your right to throw the Koran down a toilet because you are only unecessarily inciting more Muslims to go join Al-Qaeda.

I don't care how correct you are in knowing that no one has a right to force you to avoid desecrating the Koran. I know you have a right to do it, but to expect the US Government to take the position that "nothing is wrong with it" with regards to the rest of the world, is ridiculous. It gives more terrorists then its worth.

Condi Rice is not being genuinely multi-cultural, she is just being diplomatic and giving the bull shit that the rest of the world needs to smooth over all this. Fortunately, since Newsweek is at fault here, she does not need to do to much.

Of course, feel free to desecrate the Koran in your own homes and with friends. :D

Edited by Strangelove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observe the intelligence of the two Indian Muslim men pictured on the main page of foxnews.com. The signs they hold up say:

"Newsweek deserves to be banned"; and

"Bush should apologise for desecration of Quran".

Does it shock anyone in the least that when their holy book is attacked these Muslim men advocate censorship and demand an apology from an innocent party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not make me safer when you use your right to throw the Koran down a toilet because you are only unecessarily inciting more Muslims to go join Al-Qaeda.

These people will riot if a woman lets her ankles show. No amount of appeasement will ever pacify them. The only way to pacify them is to let them gain first-hand experience of our overwhelming military superiority.

Condi Rice [...] is just being diplomatic

That is exactly the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people will riot if a woman lets her ankles show. No amount of appeasement will ever pacify them. The only way to pacify them is to let them gain first-hand experience of our overwhelming military superiority.
I am not interested in "pacifying" the average Muslim man in the street. Such would be an impossible task. Nor do I think that every individual Muslim in the world needs to be "pacified". I am interested in globalizing the Muslim nations of the world to turn their youth and population away from Al-Qaeda. Islam does not equal terrorism. The UAE, Qatar, Jordan, and other Muslim nations of similar mindset show this to be true. Overwhelming military superiority needs to be applied to the terrorist networks, their cells, and dictators who stand firmly against the globalization and democratization trend.

That is exactly the problem.

What would you suggest she do instead? Given the circumstances, I would understand why a "no comment" would make sense.

Edited by Strangelove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam does not equal terrorism.

I'm beginning to think that this is only because some muslims are not yet "immoral enough" to follow Koran to the letter. But, alas, to verify that, I would have to read the whole Koran myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not in anyones interest to unnecessarily agrevate the Arab population or the Muslim population as a whole. It does not make me safer when you use your right to throw the Koran down a toilet because you are only unecessarily inciting more Muslims to go join Al-Qaeda.

The last thing you should do is make your freedoms beholden to the whims of religious fanatics. These people need to be crushed, not appeased.

Condi Rice is not being genuinely multi-cultural, she is just being diplomatic and giving the bull shit that the rest of the world needs to smooth over all this. Fortunately, since Newsweek is at fault here, she does not need to do to much.
Even if Newsweek were right, so what? This is pure trivia that demonstrates with clarity why these Isamic extremists are dangerous people who need to be defeated. It only makes it more clear who they are.

Of course, feel free to desecrate the Koran in your own homes and with friends.  :D

Or in public. These are people, who, under Sharia law, maim and imprison their own people and it seems women are especially treated harshly. Nothing of value there.

I'm pursuing a world which is free and upholds rights, and appeasing these savages won't accomplish that. It will help no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing you should do is make your freedoms beholden to the whims of religious fanatics. These people need to be crushed, not appeased.
The avereage 16 or 15 year old Muslim boy who never read the Koran in his life, is not the same as the cleric in the city who runs the local madrassas. So long as that wayward teen does not need a reason to join Al-Qaeda by unecessairly bad media reports of US actions, I am safe. I am not safe when the local cleric uses the news to turn those wayward teens away form simply being teens and twoards being terrorists.

The religious fundementalists are at fault, and they are a threat to the world, but they need to be elliminated by the wonders and technical joys of democratization which facilitates secularization. We don't need to go out of the way making more terrorists then we need to due to stunts like this.

Even if Newsweek were right, so what? This is pure trivia that demonstrates with clarity why these Isamic extremists are dangerous people who need to be defeated. It only makes it more clear who they are.

Yes, Islamic extremists, the clerics who either run the mosques, the politicians who support madrassas or the terrorists leaders themselves. Not the average muslim man in the street who is simply being pushed around by public opinion and probably likes MTV at home anyway if he could get it.

Or in public. These are people, who, under Sharia law, maim and imprison their own people and it seems women are especially treated harshly. Nothing of value there.

I'm pursuing a world which is free and upholds rights, and appeasing these savages won't accomplish that. It will help no one.

The only problem, is that the savages are not a majority of the population. The savages are a minority who wield more influence then they should.

Not every single Muslim in the Middle East supports their governments which do barbaric crimes against women. Islamofacism is a tyranny of a minority. A minority that must be destroyed, not inflamed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The avereage 16 or 15 year old Muslim boy who never read the Koran in his life, is not the same as the cleric in the city who runs the local madrassas. So long as that wayward teen does not need a reason to join Al-Qaeda by unecessairly bad media reports of US actions, I am safe. I am not safe when the local cleric uses the news to turn those wayward teens away form simply being teens and twoards being terrorists.

Appeasing them will make them stronger. Crushing them will make them weaker. And, to be sure, teenagers aren't the problem, but if they do become terrorists, you deal with them as you would deal with any thug, by using force against force.

The lesson to them will be: "you behave like a thug, and you will be treated like a thug." If they don't get the point the first time, you do it until they do. That's the way to approach thugs.

This will give them a very strong reason not to join Al Qaeda, or any terrorist group.

It's also important to make it clear that we are the ones in the right.

The religious fundementalists are at fault, and they are a threat to the world, but they need to be elliminated by the wonders and technical joys of democratization which facilitates secularization.
In the very long run (years and years), they have to be convinced by rational persuasion and the very best Western ideas, not democratization. But, that's a long way away. Right now we're dealing with brutes who are completely convinced of their ideas and there is no known way to change them. Thus, they must be crushed.

We don't need to go out of the way making more terrorists then we need to due to stunts like this.

Dancing on egg shells is no way to live, nor is it a worthy example to set for the world. The example should be that we will give no quarter to those who attempt to take our lives. Our rights are sacred. Our passion for our ideas is much higher than their's for their ideas, and our ideas are much superior. This should be our attitude.

In the movie Gladiator it was said "Rome is the light, everywhere else is darkness." America is the light.

Yes, Islamic extremists, the clerics who either run the mosques, the politicians who support madrassas or the terrorists leaders themselves. Not the average muslim man in the street who is simply being pushed around by public opinion and probably likes MTV at home anyway if he could get it.
Without support from the average muslim, these people could not retain power. The major targets are the clerics, but they aren't the only targets.

Not every single Muslim in the Middle East supports their governments which do barbaric crimes against women. Islamofacism is a tyranny of a minority. A minority that must be destroyed, not inflamed.

I question your numbers, seriously. Still, you need to eliminate the thugs, and that is a military problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with military solutions to the problem. I had very few actual resevations about the underlying objective to invading Iraq. (I had objections to its run up and aspects of is execution, but the actual idea was and still is, sound)

Its when Koran desecrating must be defended on the basis of the need to fight the war on terrorism that I find problems. Especially since no one in the US itself would actually think there was any benefit an Objectivist cause, to desecrating the Koran outside a mosque, or the Bible outside a church. My point being, that defending the right of American soldiers to desecrate the Koran should not be our priority.

But the important thing is, that no one at Guantanomo desecrated the Koran anyway, and that this is only further reason why the terrorists who spread these falsehoods need to be elliminated.

In the very long run (years and years), they have to be convinced by rational persuasion and the very best Western ideas, not democratization.

Democratization is not one of the very best western ideals? While I have many personal problems with the concept of Democracy and voting, it is sure a better alternative then Islamofacism.

Edited by Strangelove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think that this is only because some muslims are not yet "immoral enough" to follow Koran to the letter. But, alas, to verify that, I would have to read the whole Koran myself.

Religion of course, can always allow for the potential for fanaticism, that is the nature of all religious faiths, the inherent value of knowing a believed "truth". With no evdence except "faith".

But in the end what the Koran actualy says, is irelevent except in te context of the society it is read in. For example, the Torah (Old Testament) has many passages on stoning of children at the city gates and killing people for working on the Sabath. Yet Jewish society simply does not do that any more (even the Jewish Orthodox in Israel don't stone people). The same would be the case for Islam, put it in the right context, and it just becomes silly mysticism.

Edited by Strangelove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its when Koran desecrating must be defended on the basis of the need to fight the war on terrorism that I find problems. Especially since no one in the US itself would actually think there was any benefit an Objectivist cause, to desecrating the Koran outside a mosque, or the Bible outside a church. My point being, that defending the right of American soldiers to desecrate the Koran should not be our priority.
Well, ripping up a book is ripping up a book. I don't think it accomplishes anything. The thing I want to do is get rid of the bad guys as quickly and effectively as we can, and then go on with our lives.

But the important thing is, that no one at Guantanomo desecrated the Koran anyway, and that this is only further reason why the terrorists who spread these falsehoods need to be elliminated.

This is true. In fact, these people have the sort of epistemologies were lies are perfectly acceptable. This is one reason why they are hard to deal with.

Democratization is not one of the very best western ideals? While I have many personal problems with the concept of Democracy and voting, it is sure a better alternative then Islamofacism.

Democracy, in the pure sense, simply means majority rule, which could be better or worse than Islamofacism. Afterall, people could vote in Islamofascism. In a limited form democracy is fine.

The better ideas are things like Lockean rights, which is the highest political achievement of the West, not democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in the end what the Koran actualy says, is irelevent except in te context of the society it is read in.

Then why all this? If it is irrelevant what it says, why do the Muslims react like this when this book is torn? Just because of the "But it's Koran!" reason that I'm getting when I mention the issue in conversations? If it really was irrelevant what the Koran says, they wouldn't be threatening with the "holy" war; there would be no Sheriat law; there would be no public stoning of women to death; no demands accompanied by threats of killing a hostage on public TV's; and there would not be many other abhorrent things that I hear about on news every day. Face it. Koran is not like the Torah. It could be more like the Bible - that book already provided the basis for the dark ages. I think that if these Koran worshipers and fundamentalists aren't stopped, there is no reason to even hope that Koran won't be the basis for the next dark age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why all this? If it is irrelevant what it says, why do the Muslims react like this when this book is torn? Just because of the "But it's Koran!" reason that I'm getting when I mention the issue in conversations? If it really was irrelevant what the Koran says, they wouldn't be threatening with the "holy" war; there would be no Sheriat law; there would be no public stoning of women to death; no demands accompanied by threats of killing a hostage on public TV's; and there would not be many other abhorrent things that I hear about on news every day. Face it. Koran is not like the Torah. It could be more like the Bible - that book already provided the basis for the dark ages. I think that if these Koran worshipers and fundamentalists aren't stopped, there is no reason to even hope that Koran won't be the basis for the next dark age.

Y'know, you pretty much just asked "why is the Middle East messed up" which is a question I am not nearly qualified to answer. I far as I can tell, its due to backwards political systems interacting with modern ones, keeping 50% of the population held back, and lack of technological progress, all of which is due to many many factors, some of which are discussed in "Guns Germs and Steel" as well as "What went wrong?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know, you pretty much just asked "why is the Middle East messed up" which is a question I am not nearly qualified to answer. I far as I can tell, its due to backwards political systems interacting with modern ones, keeping 50% of the population held back, and lack of technological progress, all of which is due to many many factors, some of which are discussed in "Guns Germs and Steel" as well as "What went wrong?"

I assume you're not too familiar with Objectivism; otherwise, you wouldn't have attributed backwardness fundamentally to politics, technology and geographical determinism ( found in "Guns, Germs and Steel"). Objectivism holds that philosophy is the primary and fundamental cause of human history. (This doesn't mean that other factors don't have any effects.) Therefore, the Middle-East's backwardness is fundamentally a result of the wholly anti-man, anti-life, anti-reason philosophy (Islam) of Moslems. Christianity was just as virulent as Islam in the Dark Ages, but it was largely blunted by 500 years of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment. Islam, too, was blunted briefly by an exposure to ancient Greek philosophy in the Middle Ages, during which Islamic civilization progressed. But that was soon extirpated by the rise of fundamentalism just as Europe was on the verge of the Renaissance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct that I have only recently come across Objectivism. My appologies if you explaining concepts to me from an Objectivist standpoint would be "elementary" from your perspecive.

Objectivism holds that philosophy is the primary and fundamental cause of human history.

Makes sense, but philosophy does not simply come from a vacum. How people form their value systems I suspect, would be determined by the environment that people find themselves in, and through darwinian evolution, the philosophies that best "fit" the environment for the survival of the species are the ones that survive. (I am not saying that it makes those philisophical choices ethical, just my assumptions on their origins)

Edited by Strangelove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

through darwinian evolution, the philosophies that best "fit" the environment for the survival of the species are the ones that survive.

The mechanism of Darwinian natural selection work only for deterministic entities. Since the actions of men are not genetically pre-programmed, men can choose to adopt a bad philosophy even if it has killed millions of people before.

Now, it is true that there is a sort of natural selection of philosophies among rational men. Since Objectivism is the best philosophy, we can expect rational people to adopt and promote Objectivism in increasing numbers. But note that the inverse is also true: Since Kantianism is the worst philosophy, it has been increasingly promulgated by malevolent people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, the Middle-East's backwardness is fundamentally a result of the wholly anti-man, anti-life, anti-reason philosophy (Islam) of Moslems.

Your main point is right on target, based on the little I know of Middle East history of philosophy and culture. I would like to add a point: Muslims weren't the only people in the area who were anti-life. Eastern Christians and the Jews of the area were not exactly this-world oriented and fountainheads of science, technology, and republican government. The failures of Eastern Christian and Jewish monotheistic religious philosophies made the stunning spread of Islam possible.

Christianity was just as virulent as Islam in the Dark Ages, but it was largely blunted by 500 years of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment.
This is an excellent point. In effect, Western Civilization has somewhat "domesticated" Western Christianity in many of its forms. Hence, the late Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical, Fides et Ratio, in 1998 proclaiming the need for faith and reason -- as twin bulwarks against post-modernist nihilism.

Islam, too, was blunted briefly by an exposure to ancient Greek philosophy in the Middle Ages, during which Islamic civilization progressed.  But that was soon extirpated by the rise of fundamentalism just as Europe was on the verge of the Renaissance.

My understanding is that the sequence of events was like this: Fundamentalism dominated Islam from Muhammad's time in the first half of the 600s CE to around 800, at which point the Baghdad revival began (introducing Greek works into Arabic-Islamic culture). The fundamentalist counter-reaction began in the later 800s and triumphed by the mid-1000s. An example of its triumph was the crushing of Ibn 'Aqil, sometimes called the "Thomas Aquinas of Islam," by 1100 in Baghdad. The fundamentalists didn't kill him, though they tried, but they did manage to stop his attempts to meld Greek philosophy (in parts) with fideism.

(George Makdisi, Ibn 'Aqil: Religion and Culture in Classical Islam, is one source but it requires some familiarity with Arabic and Islamic culture.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know, you pretty much just asked "why is the Middle East messed up" which is a question I am not nearly qualified to answer. I far as I can tell, its due to backwards political systems interacting with modern ones, keeping 50% of the population held back, and lack of technological progress, all of which is due to many many factors, some of which are discussed in "Guns Germs and Steel" as well as "What went wrong?"

I pretty much did. However, I would have blamed their philosophy, rather than politics. True, their politics is all rotten too, but that's because it's based on bad philosophy.

Honestly, I know very little about Middle East myself. I've already tried to do some research on their history, in hope it would help me with their present day situation, but I could only work with what I could find on the Internet and I found some conflicting articles, which was why I gave up. I'm thinking of giving it another try over the summer holidays when I have time. Thanks for the titles you mentioned, but I'd also like to ask if anyone knows of other books that give more historical background on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The benefit of "What went wrong" is that it was written pre-9/11 so is free of any political correctness and post 9/11 obsesison with Terrorism without a focus.

As stated above, "Guns Germs and Steel" will tell you a lot about Geography and how some areas of the world are more fertile then others. It will then give suggestions on how some areas naturally lend to allow for civilization to come easier then others. I am not yet fully integrated with Objectivism in order to tell you what the exact flaws with the book are, some other members on this board may be more capable of that.

Just browsing the article of it on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns%2C_Germs..._Steel#Synopsis (it has been ages since I actually read the book) the major criticisms I can predict is that it is apologetic of tribal culture, and does not attempt to suggest that hunter-gatherers are backwards.

Edited by Strangelove
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...