Logic of chaos

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Dec 1, 2006 at 19:07

Dear J.S., you said :

> You know, if somone wishes to "become a slave" (that is a "devotee" or a follower) of Religion X or even a "slave" for some man-made (man-written) document such as a Declaration of the Rights of Man -- I say, "Wonderful!" If someone decides to devote the rest of his or her life to a convent -- spend the rest of his or her life praying -- whether it's Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic, Protestant, etc., etc. -- I don't care.

Still we could argue about rationality and consequences of such choices...

> EXCEPT if that group becomes a violent cult...then, I care (as what happened in Japan with that suicide cult or Jamestown Cult). But generally speaking, I think society should be sufficiently tolerant to accept Mennonites, Amish, etc. (who choose to live separate and apart, but harm no one).

Sure!

> The HUGE monkey-wrench in this system of tolerance is (unfortunately) Islam. I do not trust many of the followers

Personally I'd rather say " I do not trust Islam's followers".

> (I think many of them lack an understanding of certain fundamental moral principles -- they don't seem to understand concepts such as equality or universal human dignity or the rights of women...

The values which lay at the very heart of our civilization are largely based on humanism. They originate in man both historically and ideally and are directed towards him.

For a Muslim and his civilization the foundation of all values is Allah who is the author of the Quran with all it entails. How can you imagine that a Muslim can ever admit the superiority of man-made ("humanistic") values over Allah-made ones ? It is a blasphemy. To every Muslim it must seem to be absurd and abominable! Man exists thanks to Allah's whim and out of a sudden some Western infidels try to force Moslems to - figuratively speaking - convert to 'reverse Islam' , that is to 'Allah's submission to Man'! It will never happen! No Muslim (I insist on the word 'no") can do that without becoming a renegade and rejecting Islam ('Man's submission to Allah').

> In fact, I'd say that many of their "principles" (as currently practiced) run directly and RADICALLY contrary to Western values. They beat women and believe it is mandated by the Koran. Islam crosses a line.

May I correct just one sentence : "They beat women as it is mandated by the Koran."

> All the other major religions (even the more asture fundamentalist varieties), generally speaking, mandate restrictions (that is, the religion imposes even more rigourous requirements -- so you have to watch what you speak and what you do; you have to exhibit kindness to the sick, the weak, the vulnerable; but much of it is more about what CANNOT be done -- can't assault someone, can't abuse someone; can't steal from someone; can't cheat on your spouse; etc, etc. Ironically with Islam -- it seems to be the opposite, hey, you can lie, you can steal, you can cheat on your spouse, you can even murder people with Allah's blessings! So it's not that Islam is just a wee bit "out there" -- it's WAY, WAY out there.

According to the Muslim mind ALL rights are based on Allah's will as manifested in His literary "masterpiece" (the Quran) and His last "prophet's" deeds. As a Muslim I have all rights as long as I follow the Quran. As a kaffir you have no rights - strictly speaking- at all as you reject the Quran , Allah's masterpiece . It is your fault , your self-imposed illegality, kaffir, if something bad happens to you then.
In other words , all things belong to Allah . If you aren't Allah's slave you have no right to possess anything as you possess whatever you may happen to have illegally. If I as a Moslem steal something from you, then I just restore the Allah-ordained legality. There is no crime in theft as long as I can prove you are a kaffir. (If I want to steal from a Moslem I must first declare him to be a kaffir , to be sure).
Can't you see the perverse logic of the Moslem mind behind the appallingly high Moslem criminality ?

> And when I read some of the musings of Imams or Islamic preachers, I have a real difficulty believing that what they advocate has *any* basis in morality (or say a universal moral prinicple -- 9 times out of 10 it's about what Muslims are allowed to get away with and why the Infidels are not allowed the same laxity.)

I am a Moslem, you are a kaffir. This relation defines and explains all . Have no illusions on that account, J.S. !

> Anyway, I hear that that first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress is now insisting on using a Koran (swearing an allegiance) to this text (not a Bible) during his swearing-in ceremony. Excuse me, but this is NOT American! And I strongly object to a U.S. congressman pledging his symbolic "slavery" to an alien culture.

Well, the late pope had no bad conscience or scruples to kiss this book for slaves where it is stated i.al.
5.51 (Pickthal's translation)
" O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk."

I am almost sure the pope has never cared to read the book carefully enough or did not understand or forgot the passage involved. If some powerful guys - be it popes or senators or media stars - don't want or are incapable of drawing logical conclusions, then we should take recourse to Kant and do ourselves what others should have done for our benefit as citizens.

> In Canada, the first Pakistani to get a law degree from a Canadian University also insisted on swearing on a Koran (which Canadians, of course, did not have a problem with) --

Generally speaking Canadians don't read much , do they ?

> but this swearing on a Koran business was long before 9/11. Now this same Pakistani lawyer is a devotee of Sharia Law (he has a website, and, yes, he supports the stoning to death of women accused of adultery -- stoning to death -- that, he thinks, is a fine tradition --

The word "fine" can be applied here without restrictions. What Allah ordains is eo ipso "fine". No Moslem can think otherwise.

> and any Western Canadian who doesn't agree with him, he labels "intolerant"!

In Pakistan he wouldn't need any labels. He would simply assassinate the critic as the Prophet used to do.

> This is to turn the notion of "tolerance" on its head!). But the reality is this -- with many of these Muslims -- they do not integrate (doesn't matter how many law degrees they acquire), they do not adopt to Western notions, and some are definite security threats.

I would suggest you drop the word "some" in the last sentence. A Muslim as such cannot integrate in principle. What should he integrate into ? Kaffirs' world ? To become one of the kaffirs ? And how about 5.51 ? How about Moslem "logic " ?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".