91热爆

The question for us is not why is islamic philosophy of society so strong [something we can do little about] but why is our philosophy of society so weak? Do we even have a philosophy of society?

Do we know why philosophy is important? Because it motivates.

They know for what and why they are prepared to fight and die . Do we know for what and why we are prepared to fight and die?

They are fighting FOR a caliphate. We are fighting AGAINST terror.
Philosophically to defeat a 'FOR' sentence we also must find a 'FOR' sentence. We must find a sentence that allows us to fight FOR something. A 'For' relates to 'a Good' and an 'Against' relates to 'a Bad'.

So by using an AGAINST slogan we have been defeated already in the first battle of the mind. We are not fighting 'for something good'.

The reason we do have an AGAINST slogan is because it is the best the neocons could come up with while hiding their real aims which they know most people would not see as good. So its an attempt at a jedi mind trick.

So its 'Fight Against Terror' for us and 'Fight For Caliphate' for them.

We need to find 'a good' to fight FOR. Then, with a sound philosophical base, we can start to win.

Yes its a vacuum of explanation rather than fact. Let us consider the two models of society and being fair minded people if on balance of the arguments one stands out as better and closer to the good then, as rational people [it is rational to choose the better over the worse], we should adopt that which is better and closer to the good. I am prepared to be persuaded.

So the two models are Caliphate and 'UK Democracy'. Let us consider Knowledge. In which model is there the greater knowledge and access to knowledge and to learning. Under the Caliphate the internet, music, novels, media etc would be banned and suppressed. So in terms of the study of Knowledge UK democracy is the better model and as there is greater available Knowledge and as we can consider knowledge 'a good' UK Democracy is greater in this Good of Knowledge.

In which model is there greater freedom of belief? We would have to consider in a UK democracy there is greater freedom of belief.

Which model shows the greater compassion? In the Caliphate there is no model for a NHS or similiar structure. So we would have to say the UK model has a greater compassion with regard to health care.

If economic activity is allowed to flourish providing jobs and work then is this a good or an evil. A caliphate would ban whole areas of economic activity so economically the UK model would be greater in this good also.

With greater freedom, access to knowledge, compassion and economic wealth are the people more or less happy? We would have to say more. Is this not why thousands of people from around the world come to the uk as their first choice?

and so on point by point.

Reasoning this way by comparison we will find that the model 'uk Democracy' as compared to the model of Caliphate has more benefits for the greater number of people. As rational people we should choose the greater over the lesser. The more complete over the less complete. The greater good over the lesser.

We have no need to be ashamed of our model when point by point it is superior. As this model does benefit the greatest number of people [as far as any model can] then it is wise to prefer it. It is rational to choose it.

Come bring us your models and let us compare then line by line and we shall see which is the greater and which is the lesser. :)

What a sensationalist twist of a quote. The single quote he was able to dig up in the thousands of books and pamphlets this party produces to link them to violence was this one?! It was completely out of context, had nothing to do with expanding their state, it was related to maintaining the stability and unity of the future state in the case of a province trying to rebel against the central authority and split off just like the American civil war was to maintain the unity of the states. Let me provide you the full quote from the book:
"It is imperative to restore the issue of unity to its rightful place so people consider it as a vital issue, thus preventing the dismemberment of any province from the Caliphate state, even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims" It is still a bad thing to translate that way but hardly the way it was portrayed by newsnight. It's not a secret book as alleged above, it is publicly available written in Arabic. Todays quote from another arab (a US ally against al-Qaida) on the 91热爆's website states:
"Ahmed Abu Risha has been named as the tribal group's new leader after the death of his brother. He told the Reuters news agency: "All the tribes agreed to fight al-Qaeda until the last child in Anbar (Iraq)." " It is known that Arab Sheikhs use excessive language to emphasise a point, they don't mean it literally, otherwise we would have to believe that we were allied to an Iraqi child soldier recruiter, willing to sacrifice all the children he can find for his cause.

#7 -

Elsewhere in these threads (over many months)

/blogs/newsnight/2007/09/tuesday_11_september_2007.html

I've tried to spell out why there is in fact a profound, benevolent wisdom to what that Muslim said.

One person who said the same thing to Richard Dawkins was a NY Jew living in Jerusalem who had converted to Islam as I recall. It is worth noting that it is not just Islam that is 'sexist', Orthodox Judaism is too. Neither have a population replacement level birth dearth (i.e neither are biologically 'unfit' as most secular (East and West) are.

In order to sustain this demographic suicide which now blights developed secular countries, just keep emphasising the so called 'violent' subjugation of women by Islam.

As an alternative to liberal conventional thought, just consider whether this vilification (of Islam) could just be black propaganda which paradoxically serves to sustain a self-genocide where naive pursuit of female 'emancipation', 'liberation' and 'sex equality' has (contrary to what many believe) reaped an unprecedented socio-economic and demographic disaster.

I fear the scale of this tragedy is grossly underappreciated.

Obvious though it may seem, the fact that men can not have babies requires some careful thought, as does the nebulous word 'equality'.

Spot on pippop. When it comes to human rights, the right to equality of men and women must surely trump the claims of any religion or culture.

We cannot do a great deal about firmly entrenched cultures in other countries but we must resist the importation of discriminatory practices, in the guise of religion or minority culture, to this country. We must be clear that not all religious and cultural practices are worthy of respect and have more confidence to say so.

With a few of us, we looked into an Islamic principle whereby dissimulation is permissible in the furtherance or protection of Islam 鈥� lying 鈥� or saying what another wants to hear so as to further a cause.
[We referred to a book by Dr Patrick Sookhdeo in which he writes about this:
鈥淚t often comes as a surprise to realise that protective deceit and dissimulation are an intrinsic part of Islam, permitted in certain specific situations, one of which is war, i.e. the defence of Islam. Some Muslims also hold that it is permissible to break agreements made with non-Muslims, believing such contracts to be valid only as long as they serve the cause of Islam. It is important for non-Muslims interacting with Muslims to be aware of the existence of taqiyya, as the concept of 鈥榙efending Islam鈥� can be interpreted very broadly and may lead to outright lying. What is said in English to Christians one day might be totally contradicted the next day by the same leaders speaking to Muslims, perhaps in Urdu or Arabic.鈥� From 鈥淚slam: the challenge to the Church, by Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, 2006.]
Chuck Cohen says that Muslims are motivated by honour and shame , rather than truth and lies: they may say anything to protect or restore their honour when things have been done or said that shame them.
鈥淒on鈥檛 be na茂ve!鈥�. We need to be alert and aware. Should we try to bring these concepts to the notice of some MPs? The British psyche is prone to being too ready to trust!

A few of us looked into an Islamic principle whereby dissimulation is permissible in the furtherance or protection of Islam 鈥� lying 鈥� or saying what another wants to hear so as to further a cause.
[We referred to a book by Dr Patrick Sookhdeo in which he writes about this:
鈥淚t often comes as a surprise to realise that protective deceit and dissimulation are an intrinsic part of Islam, permitted in certain specific situations, one of which is war, i.e. the defence of Islam. Some Muslims also hold that it is permissible to break agreements made with non-Muslims, believing such contracts to be valid only as long as they serve the cause of Islam. It is important for non-Muslims interacting with Muslims to be aware of the existence of taqiyya, as the concept of 鈥榙efending Islam鈥� can be interpreted very broadly and may lead to outright lying. What is said in English to Christians one day might be totally contradicted the next day by the same leaders speaking to Muslims, perhaps in Urdu or Arabic.鈥� From "Islam: the challenge to the Church", by Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, 2006.]

Chuck Cohen says that Muslims are motivated by honour and shame , rather than truth and lies: they may say anything to protect or restore their honour when things have been done or said that shame them.
鈥淒on鈥檛 be na茂ve!鈥�. We need to be alert and aware. Should we try to bring these concepts to the notice of some MPs? The British psyche is prone to being too ready to trust!

When interviewing on Newsnight could you be aware of this please? Thanks

PIPPOP and THERESA MEYER have hit the nail on the head.

I'd also like to know when womens groups are going to speak up against the abuse of islamic women.

I email who I can but they seem to do nothing.

Ayaan wrote an excellent book INFIDEL.

Don't tell us we are the racist ones.

I've read heaps of books by islamic women and it is NOT okay!

They are taught from birth that it is all right to lie to us.

"Fight for or Against" is a worthy discussion but in the western mindset it will only be that. To lay your life down for what you believe in is a fanciful notion and the basis of life for only the few in the West where as it is the norm in the Muslim world.
Most of what has come to pass to date in the way of comments are by websital Egoist, let me ask you are you willing to lay down your life for liberal democracy for if you are let me tell you it is a figment of your imagination.

'With out thoughts we make the world' said the Monkey TV show introduction [i think Shakespeare said something similiar].

So we need to understand our thoughts and why we have them. The most dangerous thing is to have a false belief about reality-a pathalogos. These false belief sit like parasites on our life energy. We need to be free of them.

Now there is a third thing one could bring into the uk democracy and caliphate comparison and that is the model of the True Good Society. If we start to compare the first two with this then we can see greater and lesser goods in those.

Most would consider that a True Good Society Model could never exist fully in all degrees. It would be utopian to expect it however one can define it with essential characteristics and use it to compare against any other model of society.

i have five touchstones i would make as the basis for this True Good Society model that are interlocked and support each other. They are Justice, Freedom, Knowledge, Compassion and Beauty.

I would then use that to compare against any other model.

This interview was quite sad. Little is examined as to the negative effects on Nawaz Maajid of 4 years of imprisonment in a torturous Egyptian prison. Instead the blame is laid at the feet of Hizb Tahrir in which he freely participated? Why didn't Newsnight examine the party's literature for itself, right on the internet no less? Why is Nawaz Maajid's word accepted without any verification? Is that not just Yellow Journalism in the Hearst political style? (1) The halaqa of Hizb Tahrir are encouraged to include differing viewpoints, alternative ideas, including Capitalist, Communist, and other nonMuslim ideas in order for discussion and contemplation. Mr Maajid retarded his own development. (2) Hizb Tahrir does not advocate the killing of millions. It advocates following the statesmanship of the Prophet Muhammad (saaw), which calls for justice and mercy. Mr Maajid's claim is ludicrous and appears as Egyptian propaganda rather than analysis of party literature. On the contrary, the tyrannical govts in Algeria, Egypt, Syria etc. have proven they WILL kill millions to stay in power. (3) The Caliphate is not against the British people. There is no inherit reason why a caliphate could not be at peace with, trade and engage with the British people. Only the imperialism and greed of certain British and American elites foment such discord. In that sense,
(4)The British people need to account for their government's foreign policies and legacies which it continues to perpetuate and benefit from today. They have to right their own wrongs. The Swedish did it as have other nations. That is pivotal in building future with the Muslim world.
(5)A caliphate in the Muslim world would draw many Muslims to return to the Muslim world to rebuild. It would offer leadership and guidance, accountability and responsibility for the Muslim world which it is sorely lacking.

Some comments are amusing, if not so terrifyingly ignorant of history. What did we fight for within our lifetime, or at least parents and grandparents; freedom from tyranny, whereever it comes from. It's only very recently that a more complete freedom, or at least equality, has been achieved. We lose this at our peril.