John James:Again, I don't believe anyone has argued that "Islam causes terrorism"...as if it were some kind of affliction..."become a muslim, commit acts of terrorism". The argument is that Islam is not fundamentally a "religion of peace" as many have alleged...
Clayton:If you think Islam qua Islam is some kind of threat, you're drinking Kool-Aid (pun intended). The idea that any of this is some kind of organic outgrowth of some kind of inherent violence within Islam is magical thinking.
It can be true at the same time that Islam is not a religion of peace of George Bush's claims, and not a real threat. It can be true Islam calls for uncalled-for violence, and that it is not Islam, or mainly Islam, that causes the vast majority of Muslim-perpatrated violence.
There's probably a difference between saying Islam is pro-violence and therefore Muslims make especially good patsies and saying Islam makes Muslims violent. I mean, you can't count on Catholics not to use contraception, so why should you be able to count on Muslims to be violent?
Marko:There's probably a difference between saying Islam is pro-violence and therefore Muslims make especially good patsies and saying Islam makes Muslims violent.
You'd think so wouldn't you. Apparently that is lost on some people.
I mean, regardless of what the Pope says, you can't actually count on Catholics not to use contraception, so why should you be able to count on Muslims to be violent?
This isn't a very PC thing to say, but I'm going to assert that that's not a fair comparison, as it assumes all religious peoples are equally devout and pious.
The dogma outlined in the Catechism are lightyears apart from those commanded in the Qur'an.
The upbringing and lifestyle of a Catholic is incredibly different than that of a Muslim. The role the religion plays in his life is magnified many times over in the latter. The emphasis placed on strict adherence is many times greater, and the punishment for not abiding by the commands is equally greater.
Asserting that just because Catholics routinely disobey certain edicts of their church's canon, Muslims would just as easily and be just as likely to disobey theirs is completely illogical and incredibly naive.
Not to mention, it's not even a congruent analogy. The Catholic church has specific dictates on contraception. No one said anything about Islam "commanding" Muslims to be violent.
Are you serious? The obliteration of Israel is in their damn charter.
We're anarchists here. Destruction of a state does not equal genocide.
They've taken credit for multiple acts of terrorism.
And?
The head of Hezbollah said that he hopes the Jews will gather there so he doesn't have to hunt them down globally.
And was he saying that for effect, or in a way that made clear Hezbollah existed to fullfil this purpose?
The ignorance here on this subject is apparently worse than I thought.
Why don't you educate us then? If our ignorance is so shocking it should only take a few links to show that is indeed the case.
So why don't they admit they support it then?
They admit they support Hamas in its working for the Palestinian cause without acknowledging some of what Hamas does is terrorism in much the same way Americans supported the United States in World War II without acknowledging some of what it did (to German cities) was terrorism. What isn't clear about this?
I agree. I'm pointing out a tendency in people, I'm not saying it is equally strong across all cultures, regions and time periods. I would be confident, however, to relly on this tendency to spare the world of Islamic terrorism and the like if not for outside radicalization*. *Which comes in the form of non-Muslim perpetrated aggression against Muslims, but also in the form of the West lending aid to Islamists by arming them, by doing their propagandazing for them, and ultimately by taking the side of Islamists in intra-Muslim conflicts and helping foist them to power.
The Catholic church has specific dictates on contraception. No one said anything about Islam "commanding" Muslims to be violent.
Yes, yes it was poor language. There are specific dictates to do things we would characterize as unjustified force, for example imposing taxation (gasp!) on a subjugated enemy. There isn't a general "go out there and perpetrate mayhem" commandement.
Marko:We're anarchists here. Destruction of a state does not equal genocide.
Destruction of "Israel" does to those groups.
They've taken credit for multiple acts of terrorism. And?
And that would support the case that they are terrorist/genocidal organizations.
The head of Hezbollah said that he hopes the Jews will gather there so he doesn't have to hunt them down globally. And was he saying that for effect, or in a way that made clear Hezbollah existed to fullfil this purpose?
"Saying that for effect"? wtf?
You mean he followed it up with "Psych!"?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/hezbollahs-goal-going-aft_b_26983.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=Lzs48d3tudsC&pg=PT989#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7DALDZWqYI (sounds remarkably similar to someone from a previous video in this thread, no?)
So why don't they admit they support it then? They admit they support Hamas in its working for the Palestinian cause without acknowledging Hamas engages in terrorism in much the same way Americans supported the United States in World War II without acknowledging it engaged in terrorism. What isn't clear about this?
They admit they support Hamas in its working for the Palestinian cause without acknowledging Hamas engages in terrorism in much the same way Americans supported the United States in World War II without acknowledging it engaged in terrorism. What isn't clear about this?
a) I don't quite see how you can compare a nation as old and as populous as the United States with an organization like Hamas
b) Find me an American who has even heard that the US engaged in terrorism in WWII and I can virtually guarantee you he doesn't "support the US".
c) What isn't clear is how you can imply they have no problem admitting they support Hamas, with they seem to have plenty of trouble:
It can be true at the same time that Islam is not a religion of peace of George Bush's claims, and not a real threat. It can be true Islam calls for uncalled violence, and that it is not Islam, or mainly Islam, that causes the vast majority of Muslim-perpatrated violence.
I can agree with this.
There's probably a difference between saying Islam is pro-violence and therefore Muslims make especially good patsies and saying Islam makes Muslims violent.
I'm hesitant to agree that the content of Islamic doctrine makes people especially good patsies. I mean, the FBI infiltrated right-wing Christian groups during the 1990's (and I'm sure they're doing it more than ever today) and those with a more conspiratorial bent (such as myself) are inclined to believe that they used some right-wing extremists as patsies in some of the high-profile "homegrown terrorism" events of the 90's. It seems to me that generic religious fervor and a low intelligence are the magic combination that is being used in the identification and exploitation of patsies.
Clayton -
Clayton:It seems to me that generic religious fervor and a low intelligence are the magic combination that is being used in the identification and exploitation of patsies.
You mean kind of like the incredible fervor required to be a good muslim, and the ignorance that goes along with severe intellectual isolation and indoctrination prominant in arab countries?
They've taken credit for multiple acts of terrorism. And? And that would support the case that they are terrorist/genocidal organizations.
You can conflate all you want, but terrorism and genocide have seperate definitions. Most terrorists aren't bent on genocide (and those who are don't use it as an instrument with which to inflict genocide anyway), so engaging in acts of terrorism can not be evidence of genocidal intent.
The head of Hezbollah said that he hopes the Jews will gather there so he doesn't have to hunt them down globally. And was he saying that for effect, or in a way that made clear Hezbollah existed to fullfil this purpose? "Saying that for effect"? wtf?
Saying it for shock effect, or alternatively for shock-comedy effect. Like something Zhirinovsky would say.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/hezbollahs-goal-going-aft_b_26983.html http://books.google.com/books?id=Lzs48d3tudsC&pg=PT989#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7DALDZWqYI (sounds remarkably similar to someone from a previous video in this thread, no?)
I don't have time for books and videos right now, but I took a look at the article. Besides the quote you offered it has this on Hamas and/or Herzbollah: His genocidal goals--to kill all Jews--were proven by two recent statements. He has warned the Arabs and Muslims to leave Haifa so that his rockets can kill only Jews. And he apologized for causing the deaths of three Israeli-Arabs in Nazareth, when a Katuysha struck that religiously mixed Israeli city. Hezbollah also worked hand-in-hand with Argentine neo-Nazis to blow up a Jewish community center, murdering dozens of Jews. Fallacious, this proves nothing of the sort. Again, terrorism can be employed for purposes other than extermination and usually is.
How outrageous of me! Or maybe Palestinians can't see how I can compare a henious state which engaged in forceful removal of Indians from their land with an organization working for the cause of anti-colonialism and national liberation?
Lol, what are you talking about? Americans rationalize dropping the atomic bomb annually. They're perfectly fine with it. Besides, I'm sure there were Americans who knew of Dresden and Hiroshima when they actually happened. I did use the past tense didn't I?
Look it isn't relevant for my point what ever they do. They can sing marry songs about Hamas blowing up little children inside Israel or they can say they only support Hamas in as much as it struggles for the Palestinian cause, but not in its acts of terrorism or the work to impose an Islamic state. Either way it does not follow from that that they do it because Allah is down with blowing up little children. It can conceivably be an outcome of reluctance to aid to kaffir critique of fellow Muslims, or a romantic idea of Hamas as heroic freedom fighters (again sparked by identification with other Muslims and their causes) and resultant cognitive dissonance. But we already dealt with this, haven't we.
The ideas held by individuals in society are obviously extremely important factors in determining the kind of social order that exists between such individuals. To put it frankly Islam has crap ideas for establishing peace and prosperity within an Islam-influenced society and also between an Islam-influenced society and non-Islam influenced societies. If you think these phrases are too abstract, try replacing 'Islam' with 'socialism' and try telling me it still doesn't make sense to you. Also, even the interventionist order of the modern world has some private property rights - but it's a terrible situation compared to a less interventionist order. In the same way just because Islam has some notion of private property doesn't mean it is libertarian in the slightest.
Also I would like to hear your opinion on one other matter. Is it permissible according to libertarian theory to evict a squatter from your property by shooting him in the head and carrying him off, if you have already exhausted all other options and it is clear there is no other way of ridding yourself of him? What light can answering this question shed on the matter of Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians seeing many of the latter are permanent trespassers, squatters on land their Palestinian owners were evicted from?
Marko:You can conflate all you want, but terrorism and genocide have seperate definitions. Most terrorists aren't bent on genocide (and those who are don't use it as an instrument with which to inflict genocide anyway), so engaging in acts of terrorism can not be evidence of genocidal intent.
No conflation. They are both.
shock-comedy effect.
A head of a muslim terrorist organization saying he wants to kill all Jews simply for "comedic" affect. I honestly don't know how to respond to that.
I don't have time for books and videos right now,
Too bad. Be sure to go through them. And look into what Mr. Yousef has to say.
but I took a look at the article. It has only one paragraph on Hamas/Herzbollah: His genocidal goals--to kill all Jews--were proven by two recent statements. He has warned the Arabs and Muslims to leave Haifa so that his rockets can kill only Jews. And he apologized for causing the deaths of three Israeli-Arabs in Nazareth, when a Katuysha struck that religiously mixed Israeli city. Hezbollah also worked hand-in-hand with Argentine neo-Nazis to blow up a Jewish community center, murdering dozens of Jews. Fallacious, this proves nothing of the sort.
Evidently you didn't even have time to look at the article:
its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah: "If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." (NY Times, May 23, 2004, p. 15, section 2, column 1.) Nasrallah is one of the most admired men in the Muslim and Arab world today. Hitler made similar threats in Mein Kampf but they were largely ignored. Nasrallah has a reputation for keeping his promises.
a) I don't quite see how you can compare a nation as old and as populous as the United States with an organization like Hamas How outrageous of me! Or maybe Palestinians can't see how I can compare a henious state which engaged in forceful removal of Indians from their land with an organization working for the cause of anti-colonialism and national liberation?
I'm saying "I support the United States" is a much more ambiguous, and therefore much more difficult statement to make than stating support for an actual organization of an infinitely smaller number of members, and with an actual charter.
Americans rationalize dropping the atomic bomb annually. They're perfectly fine with it. Besides, I'm sure there were Americans who knew of Dresden and Hiroshim< when they actually happened. I did use the past tense didn't I?
You made it sound like you were speaking of typical muslim terrorism.
Either way it does not follow from that that they do it because Allah is down with blowing up little children. It can conceivably rather follow from a reluctance to aid to kaffir critique of fellow Muslims. But we already dealt with this, haven't we.
Yeah I suppose we have. And it either means the entire basis of Clayton's argument is faulty, or that Muslims (1) still consider those who directly defy their religion to be faithful followers of it and (2) do not mind that these people are distorting their faith and giving it a bad name...so much so that they will not even so much as denounce acts of outright violence against uninvolved parties. Including children.
And again, it doesn't even have to be blowing up little children. The beating of wives is condoned and even more or less commanded, and is something the prophet did on more than one occasion.
They are both what? Can you give me your definition of genocide?
You're right I missed that. But you already gave us the quote.
Well I mean they supported the US in prosecuting the war, many including in dropping bombs on German and Japanese cities. Smoke on the Water
Be sure to go through them. And look into what Mr. Yousef has to say.
I will.
Pressumably by showing that is not the case, by offering the context and showing why this would be out of character for Nasrallah. I have no idea what kind of a politican Nasrallah is, but I know there are politicians who will say outrageous things for its shock, or shock-comedy effect. I mean what? I'm supposed to be horrified at this but I actually don't know anything at all of the circumstances? Isn't it only reasonable I reserve judgement until I know more? Here is a Serbian politician, a leader of a party that had a paramilitary wing saying (sorry no subs) among other things his followers adopted a new method of butchering people, that they henceforth do it with a rusty spoon so that it is impossible to tell even with an autopsy if the victim died from being butchered or from tetanus. How is that for lurid? But does that really mean his paramilitaries walked around with a spoon tucked in their pantss?
to op:
I think there is an age old animosity between the west and the muslims. I also think that for a large part islamic culture is incompatible with western culture. As it can be very different. While other religions and groups of people are able to adapt to the western culture without much trouble. This also fuels a perceived threat that islam needs to be eradicated or it would eventually take over the west. There is a serious opinion that some people hold that muslim people would like to take over the world with islam. This is in contrast to judaism which does not want to take over the world with judaism. Other people instead just want to control the world for their personal interest. Obviously as israel exists amongst islamic nations and with its history being such that it is, that will lead to increases in animosity. I do think that the zionists have manipulated the west, people of all types to be more against islam because of isreal. However I do hold some reservations against islam and I do not support it. I do not support any religions for that matter and would like them to be peacefully eradicated from society.
But I do think that the way in which the wars use religious and cultural pretexts and humanitarianism as justification. Does not realy offer the real reason for going to war. On the troop level something like 77% of the military troops that invaded iraq in 2003 thought they were going because of 9/11. Due to the media and their information they thought that they were going to avenge 9/11. But in reality the military organisations just use the religious cultural pretexts for private interests. They practically manipulate the governments and its military to go do operations for private interests using religious and cultural bias and perceived threat propaganda.
I read "The Politically Incorrect guide to Islam" and it painted the whole thing ina negative light. I think it is a nasty evil excuse for a religion.
Yet the powers that be are using this as an excuse. Just because it is a patsy, doesnt mean they are sweetness and light. No excuse for invading their countries and extending Americal imperialism at their expense.
There are many videos of "Wafa Sultan" online also for further clarifications of the evils of Islam. Doesn't mean that Mr Patel from the Tobacconist is evil though. Doesn't mean we can cease to be decent and start vicimising them. Also doesn't mean we have to change our laws to accommodate them.
Listen:
* Islam is by FAR the most anarchistic religion.
* Islam is 100% VOLUNTARY. It means VOLUNTARY submission to god. Coercion doesn't exist in Islam.
* Only when Islam is applied in a statist context is it statist.
* Islam NEVER promotes statism and only promotes aggression if you are attacked.
* Islam advocates libertarianism and sound currency.
So why all the bashing?
*takes a deep breath and let's out a slow and melancholist sigh while his elbow that is perched on his chair's arm rest moves it's hand towards his face only to have his index finger meet his forehead with the other fingers creating a veil and his thumb to his cheekbone - a facepalm has been initiated*
"Islam is by FAR the most anarchistic religion.
* Islam advocates libertarianism and sound currency."
And yet you can't name one Muslim anarchist.
And what happens if you convert from Islam to Christianity or to atheism? Or commit adultery or contradict the prophet/Quran?
That makes no sense whatsoever. And says nothing about Islam.
And yet all Muslim majority countries have states based on Islam.
And yet no Muslim majority country is libertarian or with sound currency.
-
I'm not up for Muslim/Arab hate, as all of it seems to be overwrought and politically convenient; not to mention not bearing out in most statistics and opinion polls of people in the mid east. But what you are saying is not even true. Not even people defending Islam would say any of these things.
You remnd me of the lbertarian version of the hyper active 8 yr old boy who eats gogurt, the extreme yogurt - and talks about totally awesome and kool ninjaz.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Why does that matter?
Sin doesn't exist in Islam. Getting killed for apostasy only happens when Islam is applied in a statist context.
That makes no sense whatsoever. And says nothing about Islam. And yet all Muslim majority countries have states based on Islam. And yet no Muslim majority country is libertarian or with sound currency.
John James:0:37 - 0:50 - "[the term 'religion'] names a truly diverse spectrum of facsinations and ideological commitments." Fact.
1:08-1:16 - "There are sports that are just synonymous with the risk of physical injury or even death." Fact.
1:46-2:40 - "Jainism actually is a religion of peace. The core principle of Jainism is nonviolence. Gandhi got his nonviolence from the Jains." Fact. Fact. Fact.
3:07-3:14 - "Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden, and KSM...these guys agree about the nature of reality and how to live within it." Fact.
I don't believe anyone has argued that "Islam causes terrorism"
The argument is that Islam is not fundamentally a "religion of peace" as many have alleged...and that the three men mentioned in the clip are offering "a very plausible version of the faith" and you would "have to be an acrobat to figure out how [Osama bin Laden] is distorting the religion." And again, this is supported by the fact that you will be hard pressed to find a muslim who will make any of the statements I offered. One does not have to actually commit these acts to agree with them, and believe that they are righteous and holy and in line with the religion's teachings.
And what about Christian terrorists? Does anyone demand Christians agree to a statement condemning "radical anti-abortionism"? Do we fear Christianity as a whole because we don't have this assurance?
Obviously it's a generaliztion. Neither Clayton nor JJ are saying that each and every Muslim has a reverence and tendency for violence.
It's a stupid generalization not based on any concrete evidence. You cannot cite a single study which shows that muslims are more violent, at the margin, than anyother religious group.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Groucho: And what about Christian terrorists? Does anyone demand Christians agree to a statement condemning "radical anti-abortionism"? Do we fear Christianity as a whole because we don't have this assurance?
Let's see, there've been what, 5 doctors shot at, total, in all recorded history, by so-called christians. Whom, when asked, say they think doctors are murdering children.
And you think the average person should be worried about being similarly targeted by christians?
Contrast that with the extremely large number of people that have been murdered by muslims for the crime of being "not a muslim". And I think you'll see why people aren't asking christians to do as you suggest.
Not that I'm endorsing any such requirement. I think the muslim problem of wahabiist propaganda won't be alleviated by war, but rather by technology. When we aren't bathing the arab world in money for which they didn't have to work (ie, trading them money for oil) then they'll be too busy making a living to conduct jihad, and there won't be frivolous money to throw at jihadist organizations.
So basically, we need mass biodiesel :P
And even if you could, it wouldn't say much - as I think Groucho and Clayton among others are saying these types of things don't fit into the category that most people insist on placing them in.
When one starts doing this all they are doing is setting up a "game" and expecting someone to play by thier rules and fulfilling thier own self fulfilling prophecy. It's a rhetorical trick.
Anenome: Groucho: And what about Christian terrorists? Does anyone demand Christians agree to a statement condemning "radical anti-abortionism"? Do we fear Christianity as a whole because we don't have this assurance? Let's see, there've been what, 5 doctors shot at, total, in all recorded history, by so-called christians. Whom, when asked, say they think doctors are murdering children. And you think the average person should be worried about being similarly targeted by christians?
No, it's not that at all. I don't see the justification for connecting crimes commited by individuals to their religion (or ethnicity, or language, or music, etc) since it is collectivist and is the kind of thinking that compels prior restraint. That aside, what percentage of Muslims commit terrorist acts? Something like 0.0000000001% maybe? That does not even remotely suggest a causal relationship.
Contrast that with the extremely large number of people that have been murdered by muslims for the crime of being "not a muslim".
I don't know how many were murdered for that supposed reason, especially if you are including 911 victims, since their murderers all died along with them. And I find it very hard to believe our simply "not being Muslim" is what inspired them (or the ones who organized them) to cause such desctuction. If that were it, I would think they'd be keeping themselves busy killing all of the non-muslims they don't have to travel halfway around the earth to get to.
+1 Esuric,vive
The whole line of discussion is impossibly prejudicial and irreconcilable in terms of facts and reason.
News of Muslim violence (and Israeli/US/NATO violence against Muslims) is like the price of gold: both are heavily manipulated for political reasons. Therefore, there is no reason to believe we have any kind of objective information about how violent Muslims are vis-a-vis non-Muslims or how proportionate and justifiable Israeli/US/NATO violence against Muslims is. To believe otherwise is like believing that the price of gold is a true reflection of supply of and demand for gold or that the rate of interest is a true reflection of the supply of savings and demand for borrowed funds. It's squeezing your eyes shut and burying your head in the sand.
"Why does that matter?"
If it is anarchistic, there should anarchists. In judaism and Christianity there are anarchists. The same should be true for Islam, if your theory is correct.
There is sin. And if Islam was not statist, there would not be a statist context.
If anyone is interested in reading more about this, there is a bit on wikipedia in the Dhimmi section. There might be more on this subject in other pages on wikipedia. I'll quote a couple of passages:
Jews and Christians living under early Muslim rule were considered dhimmis, a status that was later also extended to other non-Muslims like Hindus. They were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute and acknowledging Muslim rule.[68] Taxation from the perspective of dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"[69] (but lower under the Muslim rule[70][71]). They were also exempted from the zakaat tax paid by Muslims. However, there were a number of restrictions on dhimmis. Although dhimmis were allowed to perform their religious rituals, they were obliged to do so in a manner not conspicuous to Muslims. Display of non-Muslim religious symbols, such as crosses or icons, was prohibited on buildings and on clothing (unless mandated as part of distinctive clothing). Loud prayers were forbidden, as were the ringing of church bells or the trumpeting of shofars.[72] Also, Dhimmis were forbidden to ride horses or camels; they were only allowed to ride donkeys and only on packsaddles, a prohibition that has its roots in the Pact of Umar.[citation needed] In the Mamluk Egypt, where non-Mamluk Muslims were not allowed to ride horses and camels, dhimmis were prohibited even from riding donkeys inside cities.[73] Sometimes, Muslim rulers issued regulations requiring dhimmis to attach distinctive signs to their houses.[74] Most of the restrictions were social and symbolic in nature[75], and a pattern of stricter, then more lax, enforcement developed over time.[76] The major financial disabilities of the dhimmi were the jizya poll tax and the fact dhimmis and Muslims could not inherit each from other.[75] The jurists and scholars of Islamic sharia law called for humane treatment of the dhimmis.[77]
Jews and Christians living under early Muslim rule were considered dhimmis, a status that was later also extended to other non-Muslims like Hindus. They were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute and acknowledging Muslim rule.[68] Taxation from the perspective of dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"[69] (but lower under the Muslim rule[70][71]). They were also exempted from the zakaat tax paid by Muslims. However, there were a number of restrictions on dhimmis.
Although dhimmis were allowed to perform their religious rituals, they were obliged to do so in a manner not conspicuous to Muslims. Display of non-Muslim religious symbols, such as crosses or icons, was prohibited on buildings and on clothing (unless mandated as part of distinctive clothing). Loud prayers were forbidden, as were the ringing of church bells or the trumpeting of shofars.[72] Also, Dhimmis were forbidden to ride horses or camels; they were only allowed to ride donkeys and only on packsaddles, a prohibition that has its roots in the Pact of Umar.[citation needed] In the Mamluk Egypt, where non-Mamluk Muslims were not allowed to ride horses and camels, dhimmis were prohibited even from riding donkeys inside cities.[73] Sometimes, Muslim rulers issued regulations requiring dhimmis to attach distinctive signs to their houses.[74]
Most of the restrictions were social and symbolic in nature[75], and a pattern of stricter, then more lax, enforcement developed over time.[76] The major financial disabilities of the dhimmi were the jizya poll tax and the fact dhimmis and Muslims could not inherit each from other.[75] The jurists and scholars of Islamic sharia law called for humane treatment of the dhimmis.[77]
Payment of the jizya obligated Muslim authorities to protect dhimmis in civil and military matters. Sura 9:29 stipulates that jizya be exacted from non-Muslims as a condition required for jihad to cease. Failure to pay the jizya could result in the pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing the alternatives of conversion, enslavement or death (or imprisonment, as advocated by Abu Yusuf, the chief qadi — religious judge — of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid).[78] Taxation, from the perspective of dhimmis who came under Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes".[69] Lewis observes that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was welcomed by many among the Dhimmis who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters, and that some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines.[79]
Payment of the jizya obligated Muslim authorities to protect dhimmis in civil and military matters. Sura 9:29 stipulates that jizya be exacted from non-Muslims as a condition required for jihad to cease. Failure to pay the jizya could result in the pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing the alternatives of conversion, enslavement or death (or imprisonment, as advocated by Abu Yusuf, the chief qadi — religious judge — of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid).[78]
Taxation, from the perspective of dhimmis who came under Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes".[69] Lewis observes that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was welcomed by many among the Dhimmis who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters, and that some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines.[79]
And don't forget there were also innocent Muslims killed in the 9/11 attacks.
"Why does that matter?" If it is anarchistic, there should anarchists. In judaism and Christianity there are anarchists. The same should be true for Islam, if your theory is correct.
Can't google 'Muslim anarchists?'
Sin doesn't exist in Islam. Getting killed for apostasy only happens when Islam is applied in a statist context. There is sin. And if Islam was not statist, there would not be a statist context.
Freedom4Me73986:In Islam, EVERYTHING is voluntary. Compulsion doesn't exist in Islam.
Is that before or after you're forced to convert or die? Dirty secret of Islam, it was spread primarily at the point of the sword, especially early on.
Freedom4Me73986:WEar the hijab or don't, Allah/God won't force you to.
But his servants on earth will. I have a friend who is an adult woman living in Saudi Arabia. She is unable to leave the country unless her male relative assents.
Coercion is inherent in Islam as a political religion. Sharia is the conflation of government coercion and Islamic morality.
Freedom4Me73986:The only reason why women get attacked for not wearing them is b/c Islam in those cases is mixed w/ statism.
So you're saying Islam isn't inherently statist, but there are statist islamists. I suppose I can respect that.
Freedom4Me73986:Keep Islam and state separate and there's nothing coercive about it.
Are there any countries doing that today?
Freedom4Me73986:I don't even think ISlam is the reason for all the violence in the Muslim world. The Muslim World was way less war-hungry then the Christian world and still is. When has a Muslim country ruled on Islamic Law invaded another country?
Are you even remotely familiar with the history of the middle ages? The crusades were even begun by Muslims attacking the Byzantines and other christian held territories. Are you familiar with the Muslim occupation of Spain, the Umayyad caliphate, for what 300 years? Iran, an aggressor nation in the modern world, is technically an Islamic theocracy. That doesn't belie your point for you?
Freedom4Me73986:In Islam, EVERYTHING is voluntary. Compulsion doesn't exist in Islam. Is that before or after you're forced to convert or die? Dirty secret of Islam, it was spread primarily at the point of the sword, especially early on.
No it wasn't. Most people who converted to Islam early on did so VOLUNTARILY. Egypt for example. Islam is a 100% voluntary religion. Show me a source which says Islam was spread by the sword.
Freedom4Me73986:WEar the hijab or don't, Allah/God won't force you to. But his servants on earth will. I have a friend who is an adult woman living in Saudi Arabia. She is unable to leave the country unless her male relative assents.
So what? Islam is hardly a monolith. Why judge a religion by what some of its followers do?
Show me where the Quran explicitly calls for coercion. Sharia isn't even in the Quran but the Hadith which most Muslims believe are fake.
Freedom4Me73986:The only reason why women get attacked for not wearing them is b/c Islam in those cases is mixed w/ statism. So you're saying Islam isn't inherently statist, but there are statist islamists. I suppose I can respect that.
There are statist libertarians as well (minarchists.) What does that mean?
Freedom4Me73986:Keep Islam and state separate and there's nothing coercive about it. Are there any countries doing that today?
There are Muslim anarchists. Islam was anti-statist and libertarian for most of its history. The muslim world had free markets w/ almost no state intervention and they didn't have all the problems we have in the statist west. Read a book on the subject written before the west became anti-islam.
Freedom4Me73986:I don't even think ISlam is the reason for all the violence in the Muslim world. The Muslim World was way less war-hungry then the Christian world and still is. When has a Muslim country ruled on Islamic Law invaded another country? Are you even remotely familiar with the history of the middle ages? The crusades were even begun by Muslims attacking the Byzantines and other christian held territories. Are you familiar with the Muslim occupation of Spain, the Umayyad caliphate, for what 300 years? Iran, an aggressor nation in the modern world, is technically an Islamic theocracy. That doesn't belie your point for you?
The crusades have been debunked millions of times. Islam NEVER calls for aggression unless aggression has been exercised against muslims or the faith. Islam had an nearly version of the NAP.
Freedom4Me73986: No it wasn't. Most people who converted to Islam early on did so VOLUNTARILY. Egypt for example. Islam is a 100% voluntary religion. Show me a source which says Islam was spread by the sword.
My source is, the Quran:
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5) Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29). (http://answering-islam.org/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html)
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)
Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).
(http://answering-islam.org/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html)
Little known fact about christianity--they're never commanded to war with unbelievers :\
Freedom4Me73986:So what? Islam is hardly a monolith. Why judge a religion by what some of its followers do?
Because it's not just 'some' it's the majority.
Freedom4Me73986:Show me where the Quran explicitly calls for coercion. Sharia isn't even in the Quran but the Hadith which most Muslims believe are fake.
If most muslims believe it fake, why are there so many muslim countries being run by sharia principles? Why is Egypt's new constitution touting sharia principles, it's leading party?
Freedom4Me73986:There are statist libertarians as well (minarchists.) What does that mean?
A statist libertarian is a nonsensical concept, mis-applying the 'libertarian' label to himself.
Freedom4Me73986:There are Muslim anarchists.
Of course there are muslim anarchists. But you have to realize something about anarchists--they are at root tribalists. And tribalism is just another form of collectivism, substituting the tribe for the state. The tribe means all, loyalty to the tribe. Not to principles of truth, freedom, justice.
Anarchists haven't realized it yet, but anarchism is a reversion to tribalism, not a new concept at all.
Freedom4Me73986:Islam was anti-statist and libertarian for most of its history. The muslim world had free markets w/ almost no state intervention and they didn't have all the problems we have in the statist west. Read a book on the subject written before the west became anti-islam.
The west is not anti-islam. Islam is anti-west. The west does not run around calling islamists "the great satan". Nor starting wars with islam and calling it jihad and calling upon others of the same religion to join in.
I don't think you can backup the idea that islam was previously anti-statist, because Islam has historically been based on individuals territories ruled with a king-like fist by caliphates, which represents near total collection of power in the hands of the caliphate, which is a statist method of ruling and living. And there are elements in islam calling for a return to caliphates, whereas there is no one in the west calling for a return to kings, though they are following policies that will result in dictatorship.
Freedom4Me73986:The crusades have been debunked millions of times. Islam NEVER calls for aggression unless aggression has been exercised against muslims or the faith. Islam had an nearly version of the NAP.
Ultimately none of that history much matters. Today, the islamic world is completely beholden to mystic influences with no regard to rationalism.
The west has made a leap the islamic world never has--the separation of church and state. And if you're honest with yourself you'll admit, to yourself, that this sort of break is never likely to happen, because Islam is a political religion. Jesus was not a political figure, did not act politically, and had no political ambitions.
Muhammad is exactly the opposite. He's a figure who was inherently political, who conducted wars and conquests, and came to literally rule a territory.
Whatever enlightened body of thought once existed in the free muslim countries of the past has been left in the past, perhaps never to arise again.
Can you say that reason is highly respected in the muslim world? It clearly is not. The Koran is much more influential. It's a shame.
"Sharia isn't even in the Quran but the Hadith which most Muslims believe are fake."
It is the body of law, which includes Quran, sunnah/hadith (words of the prophet himself), and different schools of jurisprudence.
Muslims do not believe the words of the prophet are fake. That would mean at the very least that none would pray every day or go to mecca. The Shia do not follow sunnah, but they are 10 percent of muslims. But still follow Sharia.
Freedom4Me, what books have you read on Islam?
Bottom line for me is that, despite w/e you want to claim about the historical muslim world (the west was free-er in the past as well), nothing in Islam has prevented the modern muslim world from becoming just as statist and collectivist as the rest of the world in the modern era, if not more so.
If it had, you might have a point, but it hasn't. No point. Pretty much end of discussion.
@Anenome: Precisely. That's why I noted at the outset the glaring similarity between all the most widespread religions in the modern world: monotheism. We can predict from a praxeological approach that monotheism will predominate in a social order in which the State monopolizes the priesthood/religion. How can it be any other way? The whole point of monopolizing something is to eliminate competition. Polytheism is the tolerance of competing religious practices, permitting the gold to be brought to other temples, enriching priesthoods that are not under the Prince's control. So, monotheism is an absolutely predictable outcome of State monopolization of the priesthood/religion.
F4M is the resident wingnut. His espousals of Islam are hare-brained. Muslims and Islam are, in fact, being demonized in Western media but that doesn't mean that Islam is some kind of model ideology.
That's an interesting insight, Clayton. Except that it belies how these monotheist religions came about, not as a result of some government power but previous to them. India and China's history and religious practices would seem to belie your point as well. No place is more statist than China, yet they did not develop monotheism.
http://answering-islam.org/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html)
That's an anti-Muslim website known for spewing out neocon lies. Go talk to any Muslim and they will show you WHY their religion is peaceful in its nature and DID NOT spread by the sword.
So would you say Christianity is also statist since the vast majority of Christians are statist?
I'll give you the same argument Muslim anarchists have told me: Muhammad was it. There is no one else like Muhammad. Anyone after him is a fraud. The Islamic state was supposed to have died when Muhammad did. The state in this case was a necessity and after Muhammad it wasn't needed anymore. All these statist Muslims are just buying into a distorted version of what Muhammad's original intent was.
Bottom line for me is that, despite w/e you want to claim about the historical muslim world (the west was free-er in the past as well), nothing in Islam has prevented the modern muslim world from becoming just as statist and collectivist as the rest of the world in the modern era, if not more so. If it had, you might have a point, but it hasn't. No point. Pretty much end of discussion.
You are putting Islam in a vacuum w/o mentioning all the western imperialism in the region or the fact that the Middle East has been invaded more times in history then any other region.
That's an interesting insight, Clayton. Except that it belies how these monotheist religions came about, not as a result of some government power but previous to them.
I'm not talking about existence, I'm talking about prevalence. Monotheism was definitely not prevalent before about 600 AD or so.
India and China's history and religious practices would seem to belie your point as well. No place is more statist than China, yet they did not develop monotheism.
How does India belie it? Their history is a massive confirmation of this thesis... India's religions were conscientiously polytheistic and their political structures were decentralized over long stretches of time.
I'm not familiar enough with China's history to rebut you - but my point is not that "States cause monotheism" but, rather "State monopolization of religion causes monotheism." So, did China's historical states control a vast array of religions in a polytheistic (tolerant) manner?? Count me skeptical...