Questions on "The Ideas That Promote Terrorism"

Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend?
I recently read David Kelly’s address at the March against Terror which was sponsored by Free Muslims Against Terror. I was following right along with him till the fifth paragraph when he states “I salute Kamal Nawash for the absolute, unqualified stand he has taken, and for his courage and commitment in speaking out. I salute the Free Muslims Against Terrorism for sponsoring this rally. I urge everyone to support them and make common cause with them.”
Wow! As a rational, egoistic capitalist with an objectivist outlook on life, why would I sanction such a subjectivist group that stands against all of that. Sure, they are against the Islamists, but so too are the Catholics, Jews and many other whim-worshiping groups. Should I join with them too?
There are many other points I find problematic in this statement, but this one really struck me as being way out of bounds.

Post 1

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 4:27pm

Jason-
Excellent point. Around here I've seen Kelley, TOC, et. al. referred to as 'ecumenical', and this goes hand-in-hand with that summation.

Post 2

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 7:48pm

I agree with you Jason (and Jody). If anything I think you've under-estimated the problem with that article. I think the following should be mentioned:

- The false distinction between Islam/Islamism.
Islamism is an interpretation of Islam that has it's roots in Islam - and can be logically defended by - appealing to Islam.

- A subjectivist interpretation of Ideologies.
Hey, according to David Kelley, it's not up to him, a philosopher, to tell Muslims what Islam is about. Really? What the hell is he talking about? He has too. He's a philosopher. What about Communism, or any other ideology? I just finished reading George Walsh's
" The Role of Religion in History". How is that book possible - or any other interpretation - if you can't objectively know unless you're apart of the movement? How about Robert Bidinotto's brilliant analysis of Environmentalism? How is that possible? Both Bidinotto and Walsh are promoted by Kelley's organization. The intellectual dishonesty of his position is beyond contempt.

- He's also an altruist.
Think about a lapsed Muslim who has doubts about his religion - and all religion . After the talk, would he have considered Objectivism ? No way. Instead of selling Objectivism, David Kelley told these Muslims to consider changing Islam. Huh? It's not like TOC (and Objectivism) has conquered the intellectual landscape. Unless you're an altruist, why help promote - in any way - your competitors product when you're in a great position to promote your own?

Post 3

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 10:34pm