Criticism of Islam

[DNS]

And the contradiction is rather embarrassing, it runs something like "I think intolerance is a bad character trait, but I hereby offer an argument which is precisely an expression of that."

It's not necessarily a contradiction or embarrassing; I found this posted from another thread:

paradox-of-tolerance.jpg (86.01 KiB) Viewed 1421 times

Philosopher Karl Popper called it the "Paradox of Tolerance."

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Kamran,

The Jihadi terrorist are losing thanks to Russia and Iran who have destroyed their sanctuaries.

They're losing first and foremost because their purse strings were cut. That's what helped give Russia and Iran the upper hand.

Is Saudi Arabia, the US, and Israel doing anything to contain Iranian influence in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, etc ?

Yes, the purse strings were cut... and who do you think orchestrated that?

(It certainly wasn't Barack Obama! )

The new prince, of course, has to make public denials about supporting jihadis...we don't just take politicians and dictators at their word though, do we ?

Well if you're not going to acknowledge the changes, there's not much to talk about. Maybe go back to 2016 and we can have a conversation about it then?

See below.

More globalist-era commentary... horribly out of date.

Metta,
Paul.

[Upeksha]

And the contradiction is rather embarrassing, it runs something like "I think intolerance is a bad character trait, but I hereby offer an argument which is precisely an expression of that."

It's not necessarily a contradiction or embarrassing; I found this posted from another thread:

paradox-of-tolerance.jpg

Philosopher Karl Popper called it the "Paradox of Tolerance."

I accept the Popperian argument - he was writing to defend liberalism in the midst of some of the worst excesses of 20th century totalitarianism. And I agree it involves a paradox rather than a contradiction.

But nonetheless, the internet meme posted by Kusala did not offer an argument (or any evidence) as such; it simply made a groundless, sweeping, all encompassing central assertion that all monotheistic religions are inherently intolerant.

I don't think it's possible to make such a general, sweeping and universal statement without manifestly expressing a gross level of intolerance. And because monotheism is everywhere, the Popperian logic of defending liberalism against totalitarianism does not apply - the argument is not on the level of political contestation.

Further to this, because the very idea of political tolerance comes out of the overtly Christian John Locke, the level of contradiction - rather than mere paradox - is impossible to miss. i.e. monotheism actually provides the grounds for liberal conceptions of tolerance.

[Upeksha]

Actually, it's quite interesting to contemplate the connections between political liberalism and monotheism - and very relevant for these kinds of discussions.

There's no doubt at all that the historical roots of liberalism can be found in the rise of Protestantism. And two of the three major contributors - Locke and Kant - were deeply informed by Christian theology. JS Mill less so. So the first salient point is that monotheism gives rise to both sides of the reformation (obviously), one of which crystallises into liberalism a little later down the track. And this gives us the second salient point - monotheism cannot have an 'inherent' political position, because it is the genealogical root of both Catholic-theocratic universalism and liberalism which protects the rights of the individual against the state. One must ask: why is the individual (and individual freedom) so privileged in that tradition? Read Locke and Kant: it's because God gave man rights, freedom and property (Locke) or good will (Kant).

The point here is that we in liberal systems are less free of theology than one might assume. And also, that monotheism can give rise to all kinds of different ideas and systems.

Popper's argument is really against two things: Soviet communism (which he characterises as 'historicism' because of Marx's method) and German/Italian fascism (which he characterises as Platonic). The defenders of 'freedom' in this context really were the monotheists, of the liberal-protestant variety such as the US.

[DooDoot]

I will return Saudi Arabia to moderate Islam, says crown prince

Arabia once had moderate Islam at around 700AD but Saudi Arabia has never been "moderate". There is no such thing as "moderate Wahhabism".

[DooDoot]

Further to this, because the very idea of political tolerance comes out of the overtly Christian John Locke, the level of contradiction - rather than mere paradox - is impossible to miss. i.e. monotheism actually provides the grounds for liberal conceptions of tolerance.

So the following monotheism is tolerance?

Deuteronomy 13
New International Version (NIV)
Worshiping Other Gods

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

John 17:3

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... =50&end=50

[Kamran]

Greetings Kamran,

The Jihadi terrorist are losing thanks to Russia and Iran who have destroyed their sanctuaries.

They're losing first and foremost because their purse strings were cut. That's what helped give Russia and Iran the upper hand.

Is Saudi Arabia, the US, and Israel doing anything to contain Iranian influence in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, etc ?

Yes, the purse strings were cut... and who do you think orchestrated that?

(It certainly wasn't Barack Obama! )

The new prince, of course, has to make public denials about supporting jihadis...we don't just take politicians and dictators at their word though, do we ?

Well if you're not going to acknowledge the changes, there's not much to talk about. Maybe go back to 2016 and we can have a conversation about it then?

See below.

More globalist-era commentary... horribly out of date.

Metta,
Paul.

Hi Paul,

No doubt there was some changes with Trump Admin. I believe the direct US support for Jihadi terrorists in Syria was not very significant anyway.

Its the indirect support for Jihadi Terrorism that I am referring to (via arms deals and support to Israel and Saudi Arabia, for instance)

The below Haaretz article is from 6 days ago:

"To Push Iran Back, Israel Ramps Up Support for Syrian Rebels, 'Arming 7 Different Groups"

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-new ... -1.5826348

Thanks,
Kamran

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Kamran,

I believe the direct US support for Jihadi terrorists in Syria was not very significant anyway.

Like this...?





and...

Syria’s civil war to mar Obama legacy

Its the indirect support for Jihadi Terrorism that I am referring to (via arms deals and support to Israel and Saudi Arabia, for instance)

Like this...?

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign

The below Haaretz article is from 6 days ago:

I'm not going to speak for Israel, as I'm not well versed enough in their politics to know what they're up to.

Metta,
Paul.

[Kamran]

I'm not going to speak for Israel, as I'm not well versed enough in their politics to know what they're up to.

Metta,
Paul.

Haha thanks for posting those photos

McCain and the US Congress are under pressure from the powerful Israel Lobby - he met those terrorists to make his Israeli donors happy.

I liked Trump's position on Middle East during his campaign( like in the video below) , but it seems he has also succumbed to the Israeli Lobby.

"They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were none and they knew there were none! They destabilized the Middle East." - Trump

[DooDoot]

McCain and the US Congress are under pressure from the powerful Israel Lobby - he met those terrorists to make his Israeli donors happy.

But McCain was everywhere. Libya, Syria, Ukraine. I think there is more going than the Israel Lobby. Military companies such as Lockheed Martin provided heavy support for the Iraq War deception.

[Upeksha]

Further to this, because the very idea of political tolerance comes out of the overtly Christian John Locke, the level of contradiction - rather than mere paradox - is impossible to miss. i.e. monotheism actually provides the grounds for liberal conceptions of tolerance.

So the following monotheism is tolerance?

Deuteronomy 13
New International Version (NIV)
Worshiping Other Gods

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

John 17:3

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... =50&end=50

My position - which I think I carefully laid out - is that monotheism gives rise to many, many positions. From tolerance to intolerance and everywhere in between. Therefore, it cannot be inherently anything.

Even the most cursory examination of the various theologies, systems and traditions will show you that very swiftly. i.e. Luther = intolerant. Erasmus = tolerant.

[Sam Vara]

Actually, it's quite interesting to contemplate the connections between political liberalism and monotheism - and very relevant for these kinds of discussions.

There's no doubt at all that the historical roots of liberalism can be found in the rise of Protestantism. And two of the three major contributors - Locke and Kant - were deeply informed by Christian theology. JS Mill less so. So the first salient point is that monotheism gives rise to both sides of the reformation (obviously), one of which crystallises into liberalism a little later down the track. And this gives us the second salient point - monotheism cannot have an 'inherent' political position, because it is the genealogical root of both Catholic-theocratic universalism and liberalism which protects the rights of the individual against the state. One must ask: why is the individual (and individual freedom) so privileged in that tradition? Read Locke and Kant: it's because God gave man rights, freedom and property (Locke) or good will (Kant).

The point here is that we in liberal systems are less free of theology than one might assume. And also, that monotheism can give rise to all kinds of different ideas and systems.

Popper's argument is really against two things: Soviet communism (which he characterises as 'historicism' because of Marx's method) and German/Italian fascism (which he characterises as Platonic). The defenders of 'freedom' in this context really were the monotheists, of the liberal-protestant variety such as the US.

Excellent points, well made.

[Mr Man]

This picture should be moved to the "Fake News" thread.

Not sure why admin likes to post fake news.

Does it go against the precepts?

[Pseudobabble]

I will return Saudi Arabia to moderate Islam, says crown prince

Arabia once had moderate Islam at around 700AD but Saudi Arabia has never been "moderate". There is no such thing as "moderate Wahhabism".

[Pseudobabble]

This picture should be moved to the "Fake News" thread.

Not sure why admin likes to post fake news.

Does it go against the precepts?

While you have supplied no evidence that this is fake, the lighting certainly suggests photoshop.