Saturday, August 28, 2010

Islamic Doctrines

With due respect to Imam Kringle and Islam’s other American cheerleaders, this neither “twists up the religion to serve a political agenda” nor “hijacks” Islam. Hamas, to the contrary, accurately quoted Islamic scripture. As the scholar Andrew Bostom observes, the pronouncement by Mohammed about Muslims killing all remaining Jews on the Day of Judgment comes straight from a canonical hadith, Sahih Muslim, Book 41, No. 6985. Hadiths are collections of the prophet’s words and deeds, and the one in question flows seamlessly from the Koran itself, from verses like Sura 2:61, which condemns Jews for purportedly rejecting Allah’s signs and “slaying his Messengers.” That indictment, reiterated in Sura 3:112, is echoed in the Hamas charter’s opening passages: “They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them. That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slew the Prophets wrongfully.” Thus, the charter warns, “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”

This is why Imam Rauf and his friends get so tongue-tied when it comes to Hamas.
Again: no separation of the spiritual and the temporal, of Islamic and civil law. They are one. And, it turns out, the top priority of Rauf’s Cordoba Initiative is the Sharia Index Project, which is designed to plant and expand Islamic law in every country. Wonder of wonders, that just happens to be the Muslim Brotherhood’s top priority — the installation of sharia being the necessary precondition to the Islamicizing of a society. And, lo and behold, Rauf’s partners in the Sharia Index Project include Jamal Barzinji and his International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).
Why they can't condemn Hamas by Andrew McCarthy

Wanting to kill the Jews but not Americans is not moderate, it's degenerate. To the extent that good Muslims take Islam seriously they will be bad people.

Monday, August 16, 2010

That's interesting.

Someone said of this blog:

I had an argument with this person about a year ago about this blog, in the comments section. I was a little scared that someone who is obviously this well read would be so dangerously wrong.

I gave up in the end, a little shaken. This person was infinitely more sophisticated than this Michael character...

Would be interested to know what anyone thought of the fracas on the comments page. It appears that I rattled Mynym's cage a little bit, because two subsequent blogs made mention of me.

Here is the original post: Social Leftists at it again

I've noticed that people trying to tell me what my feelings are or focusing on my supposed feelings are usually saying more about themselves than anything. For instance, it would appear that I "rattled his cage a little bit," especially given that he was a "little shaken" and was still thinking about arguments I brought forth a year after he read them.

It seems like the same thing happens to biologists when their philosophy is challenged or even discussed. The reaction is not intellectual, it tends to be much more visceral. Perhaps that sort of reaction is actually apposite given the brute stupidity of what biologists typically believe about intelligence, origins and so on. Thus it seems that the sweaty little hands of the censor are quick to emerge.

There is one thing in the comments worth repeating:
As a person who makes fun to have some fun myself, my perspective and "interpretation" might even be that this is the most important lesson to be drawn from the imagery so often invoked about Galileo. Don't censor those who make fun.

On another note, why do people almost always have to shift away from the pursuit of the truth to talk about me instead? I'll be dead soon enough but the truth will remain.