Muslims in America

Doug,

Hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered in recent decades by members of various sects of Islam.  Murder is an action and the blame goes to the individual.  But the ideas behind the killings are morally despicable and it really doesn't matter if they are accurate interpretations of the sacred writings or not.  You don't have to do a lot of cherry-picking to find calls for killing or enslaving non-believers and in my mind that makes the sacred writings morally despicable.

Why don't you find it a problem that many, many  Muslims, over hundreds of years, have adopted these violent teachings?  Given the fact that this is what we have seen for hundreds of years, why does it matter that it may be a less than perfect translation of the origional intentions (which I don't think it is)?

What I'm asking is why do find it necessary to defend this religion?  Because it is a religion?  Because not all believers practice the violent beliefs?  To me, it is like defending some imaginary perfect communism and then living in denial of the actual history.

Objectivism is a philosophy of reason, individualism, and political liberty.  Anyone, anywhere, and at any time, has the right to hold different beliefs, but not force them upon others.  Islam is not just a religion.  It is also a political ideology - complete with courts.  It has a history of conquest and violence that extends from ancient times into today's current events.  I don't understand the psychology of making apologies or in any way absolving this nasty irrational, collectivist, fascist ideology of being other than toxic.

Doug,  you wrote: 

The battle against Islam, Christianity, and the like must be fought in the realm of ideas, not by force. 

Ideas are fought with ideas.  Actions that violate rights are fought with force.  We agree on that and I've never advocated otherwise.  But if you have a declared enemy who has initiated force against you, and is continuing to act forcefully against you, those whose actions support that enemy are also acting against you.  In WWII we declared war on enemy nations because they initiated force against us and we treated those who acted in support of those enemies in the same way.  That is what I advocate we do now.  For example, if someone sent money to ISIS, they should be jailed (with the proper laws in place, of course).

I oppose Islam as bad ideas and don't advocate taking forceful actions against muslims just because they are muslims.  I do advocate a kind of declaration of war against those specific Islamic organizations that continue to attack us.  Then, to take actions against those who act to support those organizations - not just the actual members of the organizations, and certainly not just those members who have taken an action and been tried and convicted.  

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

I am reacting to Kyrel's implication that the vast majority of American Muslims deserve to be arrested, jailed, executed, or deported, and to your failure to distance yourself from this position.

I believe you are misunderstanding his position.  His position was that a majority of American Muslims supported the use of forceful Jihad and placed Sharia above the constitution.  I would agree that, if we had the proper declaration of war in place, then it would be appropriate to take actions against those who took actions to support forceful jihad and sharia. 

Here is an example of the difference that I don't think you are seeing.  Slavery is illegal.  Someone has the right to stand on a street corner and express a belief that slavery should be made legal - that is just an expression of vile ideas.  But if they take an action to implement slavery, or take an action to support someone in violating the laws against slavery, they should be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned.  I am making that distinction between actions and ideas.  I'm not sure that you are.  You see the idea part okay, but you don't seem to see active support of those taking action on behalf of the ideas as something that needs to be addressed. 

During WWII it would have made no sense to limit our government's actions to those individual German, Japanese, Italian soldiers who could be shown to have initiated force against an American.  That would be silly.  The same thing is true today with organizations like ISIS.

Do you believe that during WWII it would have been alright for someone to have sent money to a Nazi organization in Germany?  Or for a person to have sent shipping information to target convoys?  Those are things that would have been legal before a declaration of war, but not after.  The declaration of war, if it meets the proper moral and legal standards, is how a nation acts to defend itself against a known enemy. 

In response to my question about culpability if I contribute to an organization that misrepresents itself, Kyrel used the analogy of driving drunk.  But wouldn't a better analogy be one in which I am driving a car, not knowing that the last mechanic to work on it messed up and created a dangerous condition?  The mechanic's mistake or laxness causes an accident that kills a family while I am driving.  How culpable would I be then?  What if it's a rental car and I chose the rental company but not the mechanic?

Taqiyya seems to be practiced by most of the Islamic sects (e.g., several of the major Shia sects, the Sunni, Druze, Alawite, etc.)

Here is a quote from a prominent Islamic scholar (taken from Wikipedia):

"Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream...Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era."

One scholar wrote: "...believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly." He quotes Muhammad's companion, Abu Ad-Darda', who said "we smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them," and Al-Hasan who said "the Tuqyah is acceptable till the Day of Resurrection." [from Wikipedia]
 
But what is more important than the fact that it is widespread, and more important than what this or that scholar or spokesmans claims is HOW the lying is practiced. 

Doug wrote, "As I understand taqiya, it involves not lying about Islam, but lying about whether one is a Muslim."  Not true - this is NOT how it is used.

It is constantly used to lie about whatever the user wants to lie about.  Islamic terrorists lie about their intentions so that they can carry out their plans.  Islamic politicians and diplomats lie about their policy intentions to achieve their goals.  Islamic organizations that approve of violent jihad often lie and say they don't.  Islamic apologists ignore all of this.

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

The drive to establish a caliphate has been fairly steady, and often successful... since before 700 AD, and until 1925, only about 400 years exist during which there was no caliphate..  We are talking about a violent history of conquest - and we are supposed to believe this is being done by a peaceful religion whose practitioners only lie when under mortal threat?  Give me break.

Don't all terrorists lie about their intentions so that they can carry out their plans?  Don't all politicians and diplomats lie about their policy intentions to achieve their goals?

Even Ayn Rand said "morality ends where a gun begins".

As I understand taqiya, it means that a Muslim being threatened with a gun, or otherwise threatened with loss of life or property, is free to lie about being a Muslim.  It does not in any way encourage, condone, or intend to aid thugs.

I am not saying lying is OK.  I am saying that lying is not at all unique to Islam and that lying classes of people, such as terrorists, politicians, and diplomats, should not be used to judge larger groups.

Christianity has a history of violent conquest too, as seen in the crusades and in the Spanish demanding that conquered people in the Americas and elsewhere adopt Catholicism.

All religions, including Islam and Christianity, are evil, destructive, and fundamentally anti-American.

It does not follow that the "vast majority", or even close to a majority, of their misguided adherents are evil or violent or fundamentally destructive or fundamentally anti-American. 

If we make an issue of Muslims upholding taqiya, we must be clear on what it means.  A Muslim can uphold taqiya and take it to mean that lying is only permissible when threatened with loss of life or property, and then only to lie about whether one is a Muslim, not about Islam itself.  I see no evidence that significant numbers of Muslims, especially American Muslims, take it to mean anything more.

Steve,

There are lots of lies coming from Christians too.

A Christian or Muslim who lies may well be violating the principles of his or her religion.

Kyrel made an issue of taqiya, so I thought it best to clarify the concept.

I do see the difference between a victim under threat of a gun and a thug holding the gun.  You misunderstood what I was saying.  I am saying Muslims can be victims too.  I am saying taqiya applies only in the case where a Muslim is being victimized to an extent that threatens his or her life or property.  I am saying that permitting lying under such duress is not evil.

I have already discussed some of the points in your post.  In particular, please reread the second sentence of my post 93.

Kyrel,

You gave examples of what you said were Muslim lies in post 34, and I gave you an answer in post 37.  You don't really have a good case.

Steve,

I'm not convinced that there is as much difference between Christianity and Islam as you suggest.

Please reread my posts numbered 10, 12, 19 (third paragraph), 30, 80, 82, and 93.

To what extent do Islamic fundamentalists represent Muslims in general, especially American Muslims in general?