Announcement

**kentonio** · November 11, 2012, 12:09

Pray tell what they do have in common?

**Zevico** · November 11, 2012, 18:12

In saying "the difference is one of degree," Aeson, I simply make the point that those leftists not of the far left do feel themselves bound by the rule of law and various beneficial societal traditions to varying degrees.

If you're not a Leninist then killing your domestic opponents is abhorrent. Equally you might foresee some role for the free market , albeit with varying degrees of confusion.

Even this, sadly, must be a qualified statement now, as some of the left believe it possible and desirable to imprison people for their "offensive" opinions. These are quite normal opinions now, in the US, Australia, Canada, the UK.

Equally true is the fact that people do not find themselves always on the strict left or right side of the continuum in all cases. One can be left on some issues and right on others. Dictators are often but not always supportive of left wing policies. It is easy to understand why: dictatorship presumes an unbounded man of superior qualities ruling over others. Why would such a man think it possible and desirable to control the levers of the economy and every day life? he knows better. That is after all the premise of his rule. If the dictator disclaims knowledge, his legitimacy is called into question.

Incidentally, Islamists are economically left wing and socialist in terms of economic outlook.

**Aeson** · November 11, 2012, 19:32

Originally posted by Zevico View Post

In saying "the difference is one of degree," Aeson, I simply make the point that those leftists not of the far left do feel themselves bound by the rule of law and various beneficial societal traditions to varying degrees.

This is why we have 2 or more axis to describe political leaning. Left and Right are not sufficient, and when you try to stick to just that one axis you get moronic conclusions. The "degree" that seperates someone who feels that people should be allowed to do the wrong thing, rather than to force them to do the right thing, is described by the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale. The Left/Right scale just doesn't describe it well at all since you will find that at any point on the Left/Right scale you can find a wide variation on the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale.

Even this, sadly, must be a qualified statement now, as some of the left believe it possible and desirable to imprison people for their "offensive" opinions. These are quite normal opinions now, in the US, Australia, Canada, the UK.

Some of the right do as well. It is not a predominant view in either case. (At least not beyond the point of limiting certain forms of expression such as sex acts in public.)

You on the other hand don't want to imprison the people who disagree with you, you just want to install a dictator over them and everyone else who happens to reside in a nation with a predominant religion that you don't like. Essentially you want to imprison whole nations because part of the nation holds offensive views in your opinion.

Equally true is the fact that people do not find themselves always on the strict left or right side of the continuum in all cases.

You're getting closer, but your wording still belies your bias. People do not find themselves on the strict left or right except in very rare cases. The vast, vast majority are somewhere between the extremes.

One can be left on some issues and right on others.

Yes. And one can also be placed according to an Authoritarian/Libertarian scale. When dealing with dictatorship, that is the extreme Authoritarian. Using Left/Right to describe it just doesn't make any sense.

Dictators are often but not always supportive of left wing policies.

The reality is dictators are the extreme of the Authoritarian, and can be Left, Right, or just about anywhere between. This is what you still don't seem capable of grasping.

It is easy to understand why: dictatorship presumes an unbounded man of superior qualities ruling over others. Why would such a man think it possible and desirable to control the levers of the economy and every day life? he knows better. That is after all the premise of his rule. If the dictator disclaims knowledge, his legitimacy is called into question.

I'm glad you can admit your position is an extreme Leftist one, wanting to install dictators and all ...

(I don't agree that dictators' impact on an economy is necessarily due to Leftist policy. You're conflating "political affect on economy" with "socialism". Socialism is just a certain type of political affect on the economy.)

Incidentally, Islamists are economically left wing and socialist in terms of economic outlook.

There may be some socialist policies they support economically. Though in practice they don't seem to be even as socialist as the US in that regard, which is less socialist than most other democracies. Calling Islamists Leftist overall is just absurd in any case, since on most issues they are extreme right.

**Robert** · November 12, 2012, 06:18

Originally posted by kentonio View Post

Pray tell what they do have in common?

Their religion, their opinion on society and how their religion should tie-in with society.
And keep in mind, while this doesn't apply to all individual muslims, it does apply to the great majority of all muslims. It speaks for itself that when criticism is outspoken to Islam, that then the religion Islam is criticized and not every individual muslim.

And Islam criticism isn't based on stereotypes. Islam has certain outspoken opinions on society and legislation and theocracy. And it is allowed to have it.

Why can we criticize the GOP, bankers, pro-choices, drug users, cops, communists, leftish activists, christians and corporate employees, but is suddenly the world on fire if someone counters the common ideas and opinions of Islam?

My criticism on Islam is well founded, and everybody is free to counter it:
- The central figure in Islam whoms life is the prime example of all muslims is Muhammed the last prophet:
Muhammed was:
* head of state
* head of religion
* head of the army
So it's safe to say that Islam in general:
* doesn't know seperation between state and religion (muhammed was head of both)
* religion can use violence as a tool to achieve it's objects
* the prime example of Islam is one who used violence and tied politics to religion. Compare that to Buddha or Zarathustra or Jesus and conclude that there is a prime difference between Islam and the rest of the major religious figures.

- The Quran is written by Allah, it factually embodies Allah and could be compared with Jesus who is God in the flesh. the Quran is Allah revealed to us in book. It's his divine word. There's only 1 version of the Quran that cannot be translated. It is (believed to be) without errors. Criticizing the Quran is therefore impossible and forbidden. People often dream of an Islam version of the reformation. This is impossible. Not in the last place b/c Islam hasn't wandered away from the Quran, like the Roman Catholic had adopted tradition as equally important as the Bible (and thus according to the reformists wandered away from scripture). But it's also not possible b/c unlike the Vedas and the Bible, the Quran is not the word of man (inspired by God) but the word of God itself. It cannot be placed into a certain context, it cannot be interpretated. It is what it is.

- The Quran is written in the 'direct speech' style. It's not 'narrative' ("and then God spoke to Moses and said....") but addressing the reader directly. "Go to this and do that". The Quran therefore lacks context.

Compare:
"During the war of the children of Israel with the children of Amelek God said to Moses: 'go to the children of Amelek and kill them all'"
to:
"Go to the children of Amelek and kill them all"

The 2nd one can much easier be understood to be a personal order God is giving to you and you simply have to execute.
Of course Muhammed had a context in which he wrote his texts and perhaps he wasn't even trying to convince people in the 21th century to kill those people who was writing about. Muhammed, as far as it concerns me, was for his days quite a fair and honest man. But unfortunately his writing style (or Allahs style, if you want to) left all context out. We can reconstruct this context, but it's still easier to be understood as a direct message to us.

Well, that's my main criticism on Islam's position in the post-modern western democratic society.
We can have endless debates about the question if Islam is good or evil. I think that's all in the eye of the beholder.
Islam has absolutely good points and we can learn from it.

I doubt that we can mix true Islam within the democratic society.
Of course we can easily mix muslims with the democratic western society. One can honestly question though if those muslims are true muslims or indeed muslims who have sacrificed parts of the religion. I'd welcome those a lot of course! But it's a good question if it's ethically right to ask people to change their religion to fit within our society. In fact the latter is what leftish people are doing.

**Zevico** · November 12, 2012, 06:23

The Quran is written by Allah, it factually embodies Allah and could be compared with Jesus who is God in the flesh. the Quran is Allah revealed to us in book. It's his divine word. There's only 1 version of the Quran that cannot be translated. It is (believed to be) without errors. Criticizing the Quran is therefore impossible and forbidden. People often dream of an Islam version of the reformation. This is impossible. Not in the last place b/c Islam hasn't wandered away from the Quran, like the Roman Catholic had adopted tradition as equally important as the Bible (and thus according to the reformists wandered away from scripture). But it's also not possible b/c unlike the Vedas and the Bible, the Quran is not the word of man (inspired by God) but the word of God itself. It cannot be placed into a certain context, it cannot be interpretated. It is what it is.

I do not dream of a reformation, but nor do I discount it as impossible outright. In the realms of belief anything is possible. Nasser in the 50's laughed at the Islamists as people who could not even make their own daughters wear hijabs.

**Robert** · November 12, 2012, 06:56

Originally posted by Zevico View Post

The Quran is written by Allah, it factually embodies Allah and could be compared with Jesus who is God in the flesh. the Quran is Allah revealed to us in book. It's his divine word. There's only 1 version of the Quran that cannot be translated. It is (believed to be) without errors. Criticizing the Quran is therefore impossible and forbidden. People often dream of an Islam version of the reformation. This is impossible. Not in the last place b/c Islam hasn't wandered away from the Quran, like the Roman Catholic had adopted tradition as equally important as the Bible (and thus according to the reformists wandered away from scripture). But it's also not possible b/c unlike the Vedas and the Bible, the Quran is not the word of man (inspired by God) but the word of God itself. It cannot be placed into a certain context, it cannot be interpretated. It is what it is.

I do not dream of a reformation, but nor do I discount it as impossible outright. In the realms of belief anything is possible. Nasser in the 50's laughed at the Islamists as people who could not even make their own daughters wear hijabs.

You're right that everything is possible.
But we can't count on things that aren't likely.

But even within christian reformation, the majority of all christians remained roman catholic and it took at least a century for the protestants to become a significant faction within christianity. (and even today I think still only 30% of all christians are protestants, 50% are catholics, the rest are mostly orthodox and anglicans).
Why do people expect Islam to 'change' within the next 50 years? There's no reason at all for that, except 'hope'. Hope is good, stick to it! But don't count on it as a political guideline for the near future.

**kentonio** · November 12, 2012, 07:00