Social-Cons are scared to DEATH of Muslims. Why?

[specsaregood]

Thoughts? Ideas?

It has now been established that the reason is: they are all closetted homosexuals and since they know muslim societies are not friendly to homosexuals it means they must eradicate the muslims.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I certainly am not on board with the neo-con social interventionists.


But I think any student of history needs to look at the foundations of law and culture in societies. It was Murray Rothbard who said it was Christianity (since the time of the Reformation) that put emphasis on the individual as opposed to the State. I think there is something about the foundations of Muslim theology and jurisprudence that is fundamentally against the concept of individual liberty and equal rights.

 

[Jace]

Marshall Law

Martial Law

lol! Awesome.

Do you have one of those for "Loser" vs. "Looser"?

 

[LibertyVox]

I certainly am not on board with the neo-con social interventionists.


But I think any student of history needs to look at the foundations of law and culture in societies. It was Murray Rothbard who said it was Christianity (since the time of the Reformation) that put emphasis on the individual as opposed to the State. I think there is something about the foundations of Muslim theology and jurisprudence that is fundamentally against the concept of individual liberty and equal rights.

Not really. Religion is up to the interpretation of the individual. Any reformer can take the same text and argue the exact same point in favor of liberty. This is exactly what the enlightenment period was--reformation of Christianity.

In fact if anything, Islam was the most liberal ideology of its time. It was the reformation of the Arabian society in the 7th century, making it one of the world's most liberal, tolerant, productive and scientific of all ages.

 

[Jace]

Not really. Religion is up to the interpretation of the individual. Any reformer can take the same text and argue the exact same point in favor of liberty. This is exactly what the enlightenment period was--reformation of Christianity.

In fact if anything, Islam was the most liberal ideology of its time. It was the reformation of the Arabian society in the 7th century, making it one of the world's most liberal, tolerant, productive and scientific of all ages.

And the Aztecs built wonderful pyramids.

 

[LibertyVox]

And the Aztecs built wonderful pyramids.

Don't quite follow you ...

 

[speciallyblend]

It has now been established that the reason is: they are all closetted homosexuals and since they know muslim societies are not friendly to homosexuals it means they must eradicate the muslims.

thread winner^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Sola_Fide]

Not really. Religion is up to the interpretation of the individual. Any reformer can take the same text and argue the exact same point in favor of liberty. This is exactly what the enlightenment period was--reformation of Christianity.

In fact if anything, Islam was the most liberal ideology of its time. It was the reformation of the Arabian society in the 7th century, making it one of the world's most liberal, tolerant, productive and scientific of all ages.

Yeah. I know man. I've heard all the propaganda too. I understand why they say what they say about the "glorious" past of Islam.



But let's look at reality. In Muslim courts, a woman's testimony carries 1/4 of a man's testimony. That is reality bro.



All I'm saying is that different social foundations provide different views of Liberty....some produce only tyranny.

 

[CSJscience]

Not really. Religion is up to the interpretation of the individual. Any reformer can take the same text and argue the exact same point in favor of liberty. This is exactly what the enlightenment period was--reformation of Christianity. In fact if anything, Islam was the most liberal ideology of its time. It was the reformation of the Arabian society in the 7th century, making it one of the world's most liberal, tolerant, productive and scientific of all ages.

The vast majority of today's Islamic leaders are not "liberal" in any sense of the word.

Islamic ideology as practiced is for the most part based on conservative religious beliefs that are diametrically opposed to liberalism/libertarianism. While I think opposing beliefs can be tolerated in civil society, statist and anti-libertarian actions or institutions should not be supported by libertarians.

While it's true there are some *rare* quasi-liberal strands of Islamic thought, these are very small minority views in today's Islam and far from mainstream Islam.

Therefore I don't see how a libertarian can support or condone those actions of conservative Islamic activists, any more than those of socialists or Marxists.

What bothers me about this whole debate is what's not being said...

Why is Obama and the government chiming in on this?

Is this government property? If so, why is any religious institution being built there.

If not government property -- why won't Obama shut up and let the property owners and/or local community decide? If the property owners want to have a mosque there, despite local protests, then that's their right. If they don't want to have it there, that's their right too.

In my community there are restrictions on mosques, in the sense that the Islamic call to prayer has limits and they must adhere to all other property restrictions (same as churches and businesses) etc.

What the heck does Ron Paul or Obama have to do with it?

 

[crazyfacedjenkins]

What's ironic about these religious kook Christians in the US is that they actually believe in a book which promotes something very similar to Sharia law. If these mindless cattle really want old testament rule of law, they should get their asses over to Saudi Arabia.

You know what? I say we bring on the old testament rule of law. I'll be the first in line to chop off the head of one of these backward redneck assholes the second they break sky man's ridiculous rules.

 

[ChaosControl]

Why are the social cons scared to death of Muslims?

I'm not, I don't know why some are. Probably too reliant on talk radio and all the anti-muslim pro-war nonsense it spews. I always find it funny when social conservatives call me a liberal when I criticize their pro-war / anti-non-christian-religious views, when I'm probably a lot more of a traditionalist than they are.

 

[ChaosControl]

Social conservatives are afraid of anyone who might upstage them in the game of "who can be the most repressive, backwards people on the planet?"

I think social liberal regressives have them beat on that.

 

[Jace]

The vast majority of today's Islamic leaders are not "liberal" in any sense of the word.

Islamic ideology as practiced is for the most part based on conservative religious beliefs that are diametrically opposed to liberalism/libertarianism. While I think opposing beliefs can be tolerated in civil society, statist and anti-libertarian actions or institutions should not be supported by libertarians.

While it's true there are some *rare* quasi-liberal strands of Islamic thought, these are very small minority views in today's Islam and far from mainstream Islam.

Therefore I don't see how a libertarian can support or condone those actions of conservative Islamic activists, any more than those of socialists or Marxists.

What bothers me about this whole debate is what's not being said...

Why is Obama and the government chiming in on this?

Is this government property? If so, why is any religious institution being built there.

If not government property -- why won't Obama shut up and let the property owners and/or local community decide? If the property owners want to have a mosque there, despite local protests, then that's their right. If they don't want to have it there, that's their right too.

In my community there are restrictions on mosques, in the sense that the Islamic call to prayer has limits and they must adhere to all other property restrictions (same as churches and businesses) etc.

What the heck does Ron Paul or Obama have to do with it?

I agree with you.

The Muslim religion is incompatible with any other religion, or atheism. Violence is part of the religion. Heretics and apostates are to be killed.

Not that Muslims shouldn't have equal rights here and be free. But we will reach a tipping point sooner or later. We could put a stop to it if we just ended immigration, like we did in the 1920s when ethnic politics were at a boiling point. Immigration stopped and we had 40 years of assimiliation. I think now we need about a 100 year moratorium if we are to retain our American way of life.

The Hindus and Muslims of India are countrymen, but they busily massacre each other decade after decade, century after century. Maybe that's where we are headed. Someone will get offended and then light a train on fire and burn up 200 people and that will just be the society we live in, like the Indians. Multicultural. I think some people promote Islamic mass immigration into the West because they want the violence here.

 

[CSJscience]

What's ironic about these religious kook Christians in the US is that they actually believe in a book which promotes something very similar to Sharia law.

Obviously you are clueless if you believe that.

 

[klamath]

As someone else pointed out the fear is far overblown and directed at all muslims but it also didn't just happen in a vacuumn as the Rushdie Fatwa is a good example.

The publication of The Satanic Verses in September 1988 caused immediate controversy in the Islamic world because of what was perceived as an irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad. The title refers to a disputed Muslim tradition that is related in the book. According to this tradition, Muhammad (Mahound in the book) added verses (sura) to the Qur'an accepting three goddesses who used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings. According to the legend, Muhammad later revoked the verses, saying the devil tempted him to utter these lines to appease the Meccans (hence the "Satanic" verses). However, the narrator reveals to the reader that these disputed verses were actually from the mouth of the Archangel Gibreel. The book was banned in many countries with large Muslim communities. (11 total: India, Bangladesh, Sudan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Thailand, Tanzania, Indonesia, Singapore, and Venezuela)

On 14 February 1989, a fatwā requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran at the time, calling the book "blasphemous against Islam" (chapter IV of the book depicts the character of an Imam in exile who returns to incite revolt from the people of his country with no regard for their safety). A bounty was offered for Rushdie's death, and he was thus forced to live under police protection for years afterward. On 7 March 1989, the United Kingdom and Iran broke diplomatic relations over the Rushdie controversy.

The publication of the book and the fatwā sparked violence around the world, with bookstores firebombed. Muslim communities in several nations in the West held public rallies in which copies of the book were burned. Several people associated with translating or publishing the book were attacked, seriously injured, and even killed.[note 1] Many more people died in riots in Third World countries. Despite the danger posed by the fatwā, Rushdie made a public appearance at London's Wembley Stadium on 11 August 1993 during a concert by U2. In 2010, U2 bassist Adam Clayton recalled that "[lead vocalist] Bono had been calling Salman Rushdie from the stage every night on the Zoo TV tour. When we played Wembley, Salman showed up in person and the stadium erupted. You [could] tell from [drummer Larry Mullen, Jr.'s face that we weren't expecting it. Salman was a regular visitor after that. He had a backstage pass and he used it as often as possible. For a man who was supposed to be in hiding, it was remarkably easy to see him around the place."[25]

On 24 September 1998, as a precondition to the restoration of diplomatic relations with Britain, the Iranian government, then headed by Mohammad Khatami, gave a public commitment that it would "neither support nor hinder assassination operations on Rushdie."[26][27]

Hardliners in Iran have continued to reaffirm the death sentence.[28] In early 2005, Khomeini's fatwā was reaffirmed by Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to Muslim pilgrims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.[29] Additionally, the Revolutionary Guards have declared that the death sentence on him is still valid.[30] Iran has rejected requests to withdraw the fatwā on the basis that only the person who issued it may withdraw it,[29] and the person who issued it – Ayatollah Khomeini – has been dead since 1989.

Rushdie has reported that he still receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on 14 February letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to kill him. He said, "It's reached the point where it's a piece of rhetoric rather than a real threat."[31] Despite the threats on Rushdie, he has publicly said that his family has never been threatened and that his mother (who lived in Pakistan during the later years of her life) even received outpourings of support.[32]

A former bodyguard to Rushdie, Ron Evans, planned to publish a book recounting the behaviour of the author during the time he was in hiding. Evans claimed that Rushdie tried to profit financially from the fatwa and was suicidal, but Rushdie dismissed the book as a "bunch of lies" and took legal action against Ron Evans, his co-author and their publisher.[33] On 26 August 2008 Rushdie received an apology at the High Court in London from all three parties.[34]

[edit] Failed assassination attempt and Hezbollah's comments
On 3 August 1989, while Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh was priming a book bomb loaded with RDX explosives in a hotel in Paddington, Central London, the bomb exploded prematurely, taking out two floors of the hotel and killing Mazeh. A previously unknown Lebanese group, the Organization of the Mujahidin of Islam, said he died preparing an attack "on the apostate Rushdie". There is a shrine in Tehran's Behesht-e Zahra cemetery for Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh that says he was "Martyred in London, 3 August 1989. The first martyr to die on a mission to kill Salman Rushdie." Mazeh's mother was invited to relocate to Iran, and the Islamic World Movement of Martyrs' Commemoration built his shrine in the cemetery that holds thousands of Iranian soldiers slain in the Iran–Iraq War.[26] During the 2006 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared that "If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini's fatwā against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so. I am sure there are millions of Muslims who are ready to give their lives to defend our prophet's honour and we have to be ready to do anything for that."[35] James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation testified before the United States Congress that a "March 1989" (sic) explosion in Britain was a Hezbollah attempt to assassinate Rushdie which failed when a bomb exploded prematurely, killing a Hezbollah activist in London.[36]

 

[LibertyVox]

Yeah. I know man. I've heard all the propaganda too. I understand why they say what they say about the "glorious" past of Islam.



But let's look at reality. In Muslim courts, a woman's testimony carries 1/4 of a man's testimony. That is reality bro.



All I'm saying is that different social foundations provide different views of Liberty....some produce only tyranny.

I think it is 1/2 or something and that too in some cases such as financial transactions and that at a time when a woman's testimony wasn't even permissible including much of the world. I don't think there are any courts in any country with a large Muslim population where this law is stipulated with perhaps the exception of KSA and Iran??? In any event, I am sure there is a great deal of debate and have been as to how this verse should be interpreted much like any society. Saudi Arabia wouldn't allow female judges but Palestinian Islamic courts do. Women had sufrage in 7th century Arabia, ours didn't until 1920 etc etc.

Any ways, if you're the kind of person who hates Muslims and is convinced willy nilly that Islam is evil and there is nothing out there more evil than this belief system and there absolutely nothing positive can be associated with this belief system or those myriad of races, cultures and societies who follow it, then there is no point in discussing, as it will devolve into a useless argument and quite frankly I am not the person you should argue with on this subject matter. I would've advised you to seek out Islamic scholars and historians if you had any questions but I don't think you have any questions that you want answered. I think you already have passed judgement and made up your mind. So, you know....good luck with whichever way you want to be. Just remember...life's short.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You want reality bro?

A dozen Muslim women have led their countries, including Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh to name some.

The witch trials of Salem murdered innocent Christian women.

The witch hunt in Europe murdered hundreds of thousands of women.

While Europe was in a dark age Islam was in their golden age, which has contributed to the advancement of society today. They had a capitalist free market economic system in place.

Fact is women didn't have the rights to vote until 90 years ago, and blacks could not use the same restroom 50 years ago, let's not pretend all civilizations are the best. All civilizations adapt to change in society.

......


It never fails that someone will bring up "the salem witch trials" when a beautiful young Muslim woman got her face cut off a few weeks ago.


I don't want a tyrannical society like that just like I don't want Mao's China or Stalin's Russia.



There is NOTHING wrong with defending Liberty in the face of tyranny, whether that tyranny is wrapped in atheism or theism.

 

[LibertyVox]

......


It never fails that someone will bring up "the salem witch trials" when a beautiful young Muslim woman got her face cut off a few weeks ago.


I don't want a tyrannical society like that just like I don't want Mao's China or Stalin's Russia.



There is NOTHING wrong with defending Liberty in the face of tyranny, whether that tyranny is wrapped in atheism or theism.

And if I post women being mutilated right here in this country, what would that mean?

 

[CSJscience]

These women didn't seem very happy about having Sharia law imposed on them.

Did they have a choice? No. Remember, Islam=Submission. (exact opposite of libertarianism)

Iranian Women Protest Against Islamic Law
YouTube - Iranian Women Protest Against Islamic Law

 

[Fozz]

Why are the social cons scared to death of Muslims?

The argument typically goes like this...

"Well the Muslims are going to come in here and take over once they get enough people to vote themselves into office and then they'll institute Sharia Law and turn us into a Muslim nation... just look at the problems France and other European countries are having"

Thoughts? Ideas?

They are not scared, they are willfully ignorant and bigoted.

Even Pat Buchanan knows better.