Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fitna vs Expelled – Is Islamofascism similar to Darwinian fascism?


Are there parallels between the effects of “Big Science” Darwinism severe job discrimination against non-Darwinists as shown in Expelled, and recent terrorism by Jihadists?

The very controversial film Fitna offers a view on radical Islam and the Qur’an by by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV). It was just released today March 27th on the Internet, and already has over one million downloads each in English and Dutch. Wilders alternates verses from the Qur’an with terrorist events and statements by radical jihadists. Blogpulse of Fitna already lists 2110 messages or 0.1% of messages, compared to 1618 for Blogpulse Expelled Stein.

Compare prominent Darwinist PZ Myers Insisting:

“Don’t tell me to be dispassionate or less unreasonable about it all because because 65% of the American population think creationism should be taught alongside evolution,. . .
I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. If you don’t care enough for the truth to fight for it, then get out of the way.”

Perspective, Pharyngula, Thursday, August 04, 2005

Similarly PZ Myers advocates:

“Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians”(objecting to a creationist high school biology teacher and the education commissioner seeking instruction in “intelligent design creationism”)

What differences are there between imposing the beliefs of believers in Darwinism on others, with imposing the beliefs of radical Islam on others? Is either compatible with constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and speech?

Do we need to describe and strongly oppose such tactics as Darwinian Fascism?

Describing September 11, 2001, Stephen Schwartz defined:

“Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama’atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.”

See: What Is ‘Islamofascism’? A history of the word from the first Westerner to use it. The Daily Standard 08/17/2006. See: Islamofascism at Wikipedia.

What do we need to do to vigorously uphold our rights to religious expression and speech? See:

fn2 [ Annotations ]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Human Rights Day, Bill of Rights Day, and Human Rights Week, 2001

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

  • Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
  • Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, nonselfgoverning or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
  • Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The film Fitna is available as follows (warning, disturbing themes and visuals):

{PS DLH added “radical” to Islam}

A Muslim response to Fitna: A Netherworldly Fitna! Written by Sayyid Ali Quli Qarai Monday, 07 April 2008 The anti-Qur'an video by Geert Wilders is the most recent of efforts, albeit a very coarse one, to malign Islam and Muslims. Its attempts to cast aspersions on the Holy Qur'an are based on distortions and mistranslations of some of its verses quoted out of context. In the following, I will try to bring out some of the grotesque character of its allegations. (1) The first verse (8:60), cited at the opening, is an advice to Muslims of the Prophet's era to establish an effective defense force to protect the new-born Islamic state from actually or potentially hostile entities, which included the pagan Arab tribes and the empires of Persia and Byzantium. Together with 8:61, it also sets forth a straightforward military policy for the Islamic state: establishment of effective defence to deter present and future enemies and maintenance of peace with non-Muslim neighbors who desire to maintain peaceful relations with the Islamic state: Prepare against them whatever you can of [military] power and war-horses, awing thereby the enemy of Allah, and your enemy, and others besides them, whom you do not know, but Allah knows them. And whatever you spend in the way of Allah will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged. And if they incline toward peace, then you [too] incline toward it, and put your trust in Allah. Indeed He is the All-hearing, the All-knowing. (8:60-61) Now read the distorted, truncated version quoted in Mr. Wilders' film: "Prepare to destroy 'them' with all force. Terrorize Allah's enemy and your enemy." (2) The second verse cited is 4:56, which gives a graphic description of the state of the faithless in hell. Similar graphic depictions of hell abound in Christian literature and art, such as Dante's Divine Comedy and paintings of Medieval and Renaissance artists (e.g. Hieronymus Bosch's Last Judgment), and in the art and literature of other faiths. One would hardly suspect that a verse such as this would provide ammunition for anti-Islamic propaganda. But Wilders is determined to distort the Qur'anic language to fit his own callow and grisly purposes. The Qur'an says: Indeed, those who defy Our signs, We shall soon make them enter a Fire: as often as their skins become scorched, We shall replace them with other skins, so that they may taste the punishment. Indeed Allah is all-mighty, all-wise. (4:56) Mr. Widlers offers this translation for the verse: "Those who are disbelievers will be burned in fire and when their skin is crispy like a turkey's we will replace it with another skin, so that they will know their punishment. Allah is great and wise." There is no mention of "skin turning crispy like a turkey's" in the Quran. (3) Verse 47:7 is a general guideline for the conduct of Muslim warfare against the troops of pagan Arab tribes, who were in a league determined to annihilate the emergent Islamic state and religion. Although it is meant as a war directive, there is a resounding note of Divine Compassion even in this passage: When you meet the faithless in battle, strike their necks. When you have thoroughly decimated them, bind the captives firmly. Thereafter either oblige them [by setting them free] or take ransom till the war lays down its burdens. That [is Allah's ordinance], and had Allah wished He could have taken vengeance on them, but that He may test some of you by means of others. (47:4) Mr. Wilders gives the following text as representing 47:7: "When you have an encounter with a disbeliever, cut their throats (sic) with a sword and spill their blood." The accuracy of Mr. Wilders' rendition and his honesty as a critic of the Qur'an are left to the reader's judgment. (4) There was a group of saboteurs and spies amongst Muslims who practiced dissemblance by appearing to be converts, while working secretly for the pagans in their designs to eradicate the newly established faith. They are called Munafiqun (hypocrites) in the Qur'an and in Muslim parlance. Some of these self-styled "Muslims" lived in Mecca with the pagans, and exploited their professed conversion and contacts with Medina to spy on the Muslims. Some Muslims sympathized with them, while others considered them dangerous. Verse 4:89, which relates to these hypocrites, is cited erroneously in the video as an assertion against non-Muslims. A thorough discussion of the historical and political background of verse 4:89 can be found in detailed works on Qur'anic exegesis. Here, however, we quote verse 4:89, along with its preceding and following verses, to throw light on the exact context: Why should you be two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them relapse (into unfaith) because of their deeds? Do you desire to guide someone Allah has led astray? Whomever Allah leads astray, you will never find any way for him. They are eager that you should disbelieve like they have disbelieved, so that you all become alike. So do not make friends [with anyone] from among them, until they migrate in the way of Allah. But if they turn their backs [i.e. if they refuse to join the Muslim community in Medina and prefer to continue their residence amongst the pagan Meccans], seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take from among them friends or helpers, excepting those who join a people between whom and you there is a treaty, or such as come to you with hearts reluctant to fight you or to fight their own people. Had Allah wished, He would have imposed them upon you, and then they would have surely fought you. So if they keep out of your way and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then Allah does not allow you any course [of action] against them. (4: 88-90) As can be seen, these verses are meant to put an end to security risks arising from suspect external elements pretending allegiance to Islam. Moreover, in them the Qur'an directs Muslims to honor their obligations towards non-belligerent pagan tribes who had peace treaties with the Islamic state. Mr. Wilders, unconcerned with context and background, renders verse 4:89 as follows, as if it were another item in a string of invectives against non-Muslims: "They would like to see you become disbelievers, don't trust these people as long as they don't follow Allah. When they escape, kill them wherever you find them! Don't trust them, it will be your grave." The Qur'an's Teaching Concerning Jews and Christians: Mr. Wilders' little video is loaded with terrible scenes of bloodshed and terrifying statements from apparently Muslim individuals against non-Muslims, especially Jews. By any civilized standards, every individual is responsible for his own statements and deeds, no other. To transfer the blame for an individual's words and deeds to an entire community or religion is to yield to barbarism. The deeds and words allegedly attributed in Mr. Wilders' video to Muslim individuals relate as such only to their alleged authors, in case such attribution be true. I as a Muslim neither relate to any of those acts and statements, nor do I consider myself or any other Muslim answerable for them. All I can say here is that the attempt of the video to project such statements and acts as stereotyping Muslim attitude towards non-Muslims, is contrary to Islam and the Quran as practiced and understood by the vast majority of Muslims, Shia and Sunni. First, the Quran honours all pious and faithful persons regardless of their religious tradition. It declares in clear terms in two places in the scripture: Indeed the faithful, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabaeans – those of them who have faith in Allah and the Last Day and act righteously – they shall have their reward near their Lord, and they will have no fear, nor will they grieve. (2:62 & 5:69) It is true that the Quran does not entertain a very positive view of the Jews as a religious community and is very critical of their conduct (not because of their Jewishness, but because of their human character and failings; many Muslims would see the same criticism to be as pertinent to the conduct of some Muslim communities through the last fourteen hundred years, especially in view of some prophetic traditions which consider Qur'anic descriptions of Jews and Christians as being archetypical of the future conduct of Muslim communities themselves): Certainly Allah took a pledge from the Children of Israel, and We raised among them twelve chiefs. And Allah said, 'I am with you! Surely, if you maintain the prayer and give the alms and have faith in My apostles and support them and lend Allah a good loan, I will surely absolve you of your misdeeds, and I will surely admit you into gardens with streams running in them. But whoever of you disbelieves after that has certainly strayed from the right way.' Then, because of their breaking their covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard: they pervert words from their meanings and have forgotten a part of what they were reminded. You will not cease to learn of some of their treachery, excepting a few of them. Yet excuse them and forbear. Indeed Allah loves the virtuous. (5:12-13) Whenever an apostle brought them that which was not to their liking, they would impugn a part of them, and a part they would slay. They supposed there would be no testing, so they became blind and deaf. Thereafter Allah accepted their repentance, yet [again] many of them became blind and deaf, and Allah sees best what they do. (5: 70-71) Surely many of them (i.e. Jews) will be increased by what has been sent to you from your Lord in rebellion and unfaith, and We have cast enmity and hatred amongst them until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they ignite the flames of war, Allah puts them out. They seek to cause corruption on the earth, and Allah does not like the agents of corruption. (5:64) But it also acknowledges that they are not all alike: Yet they are not all alike. Among the People of the Book (i.e. the Jews) is an upright nation; they recite Allah's signs in the watches of the night and prostrate. (3:113) Among the people of Moses is a nation who guide [the people] by the truth and do justice thereby. (7: 159) The Quran is also very critical of the Christian doctrine of Trinity and rejects Christian theology which deifies Jesus: They are certainly faithless who say, 'Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.' Say, 'Who can avail anything against Allah should He wish to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone upon the earth?' To Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and whatever is between them. He creates whatever He wishes, and Allah has power over all things. (5: 17) It considers the schism and fragmentation of the Christian community as being due to its turning its back on its Divine commitments: Also from those who say, 'We are Christians,' We took their pledge; but they forgot a part of what they were reminded. So We stirred up enmity and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection, and soon Allah will inform them concerning what they had been doing. (3:14) Yet it has warm words of appreciation for individual Christians who try to live up to the demands of their faith, considering them to be emotionally and spiritually closer to Muslims: Surely You will find the most hostile of all people towards the faithful to be the Jews and the polytheists, and surely you will find the nearest of them in affection to the faithful to be those who say 'We are Christians.' That is because there are priests and monks among them, and because they are not arrogant. When they hear what has been revealed to the Apostle, you see their eyes fill with tears because of the truth that they recognize. They say, 'Our Lord, we believe; so write us down among the witnesses. Why should we not believe in Allah and the truth that has come to us, eager as we are that our Lord should admit us among the righteous people?' (5:82-84) The Qur'an categorically rejects the idea that any people or nation can be God's chosen or beloved people merely on creedal, racial or ethnic grounds. The Jews and the Christians say, 'We are Allah's children and His beloved ones.' Say, 'Then why does He punish you for your sins?' Rather, you are humans from among His creatures. He forgives whomever He wishes, and punishes whomever He wishes, and to Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and whatever is between them, and toward Him is the return. (5:18) From the viewpoint of the Qur'an, no one is entitled to Divine favor on mere basis of his creed. Those are nearest to God who have faith in Him and follow His edicts contained in the scriptures. O mankind! Indeed We created you from a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes that you may identify yourselves with one another. Indeed the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the most Godwary among you. Indeed Allah is all-knowing, all-aware. (49:13) Although the Qur'an considers Islam as the most complete and perfect religion, it takes a pragmatic view of religious allegiances and accepts other religions, calling upon their followers to loyally follow their scriptures. Say, 'O People of the Book! You do not stand on anything until you observe the Torah and the Evangel and what was sent down to you from your Lord.' (5: 68) Let the people of the Evangel judge by what Allah has sent down in it. Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down—it is they who are the transgressors. (5:47) For each [community] among you We appointed a code [of law] and a path, and had Allah wished He would have made you one community, but [His purposes required] that He should test you in respect to what He has given you. So take the lead in all good works. To Allah shall be the return of you all, whereat He will inform you concerning that about which you used to differ. (5:48) No nation or community has any special relationship with God. The Qur'an does not consider God's favor towards Muslim communities to be unconditional: O you who have faith! Should any of you desert his religion, Allah will soon bring a people whom He loves and who love Him, [who will be] humble towards the faithful, stern towards the faithless, waging struggle in the way of Allah, not fearing the blame of any blamer. That is Allah's grace which He grants to whomever He wishes, and Allah is all-bounteous, all-knowing. (5: 54) Sayyid Ali Quli Qarai is an Indian scholar. He has published several books, including a phrase-by-phrase English translation of the Holy Qur'an. mohammed.husain
Frosty: KG's work on incompleteness and related undecidability is indeed powerful and humbling. His point is that if the mind is like a computer, it cannot pass the level of the axioms and their limitation that they cannot be both complete and coherent and there is no CONSTRUCTIVE procedure to make them known to be coherent [save for making certain assumptions that are themselves reflective of undecidability]. KG comes down on the side of intuition, that we can see and even know beyond what we can prove. In short, we all live by faith, in the end -- the issue is, which one, why. GEM of TKI PS: DLH, the radical, violent Islamists are a shame to all people, including most decent-minded Muslims. Sadly, within teh islamic thought world, they have some very significant warrant for thewir views. That means that we have to appeal to the moral intuitions to call for repentance and reformation, or if such is impossible, a walkaway. Cf my cites and remarks at 148. kairosfocus
Radical Islam provides another example of their understanding of the "friendly skies". 'Terror plot' to blow up transatlantic flights out of London British Muslims 'planned to kill thousands by bombing SEVEN transatlantic airliners in one go' -All in the name of Islam. DLH
Either there are such questions or the human mind is more than a machine. In my opinion the second alternative is much more likely.” That's beautiful. Thanks. tribune7
Kariousfocus, I wanted to comment on the Gödel question put forward by Tribune. Here is a quote that I have been hiding for some time now because I found it so enlightening and inspiring I had the feeling like I didn't want anyone else you know about it. My selfishness has been replaced with my desire to share the quote with you all. This is a quote written by Kurt Gödel in a letter to someone inquiring about the philosophical implications of his work-
“What has been proved is only that the kind of reasoning necessary in mathematics cannot be completely mechanized. Rather constantly renewed appeals to mathematical intuition are necessary. The decision of my "undecidable" proposition ... results from such an appeal. ... Whether every arithmetical yes or no question can be decided with the help of some chain of mathematical intuitions is not known. At any rate it has not been proved that there are arithmetical questions undecidable by the human mind. Rather what has been proved is only this: Either there are such questions or the human mind is more than a machine. In my opinion the second alternative is much more likely.” ---Kurt Gödel [9, p. 162, Letter to David F. Plummer]
What beautifully eloquent and precise language Gödel uses to describe the implications of his result. Note how he uses the word “undecidable” instead of “incompleteness.” For the longest time I was under the impression that Gödel did away with formalism. That is that his theorem proved that formal systems were flawed or incomplete within themselves but according to Gödel- while he is hesitant to say for sure (but of course how could he say anything for sure given the circumstances) what the implication was he favored the mystical explanation that the Mind is more than machine. Spooky. Gödel as it turns out thought that mathematical intuition went beyond formalization but didn’t disprove it. Gödel believed in intuition above all else, and it makes sense because the long friendship between Einstein and Gödel was perhaps facilitated by that high respect for the intuition that they both shared. Einstein once was speaking with Rockefeller and Rockefeller said to him “you know I put my faith in organization“- with which Einstein replied “I put mine in intuition.” If Gödel’s interpretation of his result isn't intelligent design worthy and oriented than i don't know what is. ---Kurt Gödel [9, p. 162, Letter to David F. Plummer] Frost122585
DLH: I found this excerpt from the article you linked [thanks!] perhaps even more compelling -- and, let us remember, it is Algerian Moderates who seem to have invented the term, Islamofascism:
. . . Overall, the film [Fitna] presents a succinct, yet superficial (and perhaps simplistic) overview of particular verses of the Qur'an, and the Muslim tradition which can be interpreted to mandate violence and oppression, and attempts to demonstrate how these verses have been applied to justify Islamic terrorism and the maltreatment of non-Muslims, women, homosexuals and others. Nevertheless Fitna uses powerful imagery, concrete examples, Islamic sources and actual words and statements of Muslims and Muslim commentators to support its thesis. Fitna provides a powerful reminder of the drivers behind the terrorist murders which took place on September 11th and in London, Madrid and many other locations. The film suffers from an important flaw however. In its conciseness and brevity, it does not provide a full picture of modern Islamic thought. It leads the viewer to believe, that there is only a singular understanding of Islam and of the verses in the Qur'an. It overtly ignores the existence and work of moderate Muslims and more liberal schools of Islam. That being said, it would be disingenuous to argue that the substance of the film is somehow inaccurate. These verses have been used and justified, extensively by both traditional and modern scholars (such as Sheikh Al-Rashudi and Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi). While there are liberal and moderate schools of Islamic thought, they are, unfortunately, not predominant. Nonetheless, the portrayal of Islam as a singular monstrous monolith is troubling, from the perspective of a moderate Muslim. At the same time however, the film (perhaps unwittingly) speaks to moderate Muslims and poses a challenge. This takes place during arguably the film's most powerful moment at the conclusion where an image of the Qur'an is placed on the screen, and the sound of tearing pages is heard in the background. The narrator immediately puts forward a challenge to Muslims: The sound you heard was a page being removed from the phonebook. For it is not up to me, but to Muslims to tear out the hateful verses of the Qur'an.
It is ever so chilling to hear an obviously moderate Muslim make that summary, especially to see him critique the film for missing the moderate position -- fair enough -- then have to concede that that moderate position is "not predominant." For, it describes a Muslim position, one that clearly has historical roots in classical and even foundational era Islam, and it shows that the position is what motivated the sort of terrorism we have seen in too many cases across the world. Then, even in protesting that his is not the only Muslim view, it has to concede that the more moderate views do not predominate. In other words, the picture that, say, a Dr Sookhdeo paints is -- sadly -- substantially accurate: a relatively small but numerically very large and violent minority, a major slice that hold similar views of the relevant texts and traditions, but do not currently think the time is right for the world conquering surge of Islam, and a distinctly smaller minority view that is more moderate. Also, I think there is evidence to support that there is a growing proportion of the disenchanted, who have seen the violent side of Islamism, and do not like what they see. Probably, this explains the rising success of a Father Botros, whose evangelism and apologetics that gently challenges the Islamic authorities to justify their claims and teachings, joined to invitation to turn to one who is unquestionably non-violent, Jesus, is a big factor in the 6 million Muslims per year who are reported to be converting out of Islam, threats notwithstanding. Here, from the just linked, is a summary of his work:
Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East. Botros is an unusual figure onscreen: robed, with a huge cross around his neck, he sits with both the Koran and the Bible in easy reach. Egypt’s Copts — members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East — have in many respects come to personify the demeaning Islamic institution of “dhimmitude” (which demands submissiveness from non-Muslims, in accordance with Koran 9:29). But the fiery Botros does not submit, and minces no words. He has famously made of Islam “ten demands,” whose radical nature he uses to highlight Islam’s own radical demands on non-Muslims. The result? Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry. More recently, al-Jazeera noted Life TV’s “unprecedented evangelical raid” on the Muslim world.
One hopes and prays that good sense, common decency and moderation will in the end prevail. GEM of TKI kairosfocus
A moderate Moslim's viewpoint on Fitna
Muslims should be angry about Fitna, but that anger should be directed to those ulaema and leaders who perpetuate traditional Islamist positions. Nevertheless, despite any feelings of anger Muslims must tolerate it, and other perceived insults to Islam, in order to demonstrate true Muslim tolerance and compatibility with wider civilisation. Moderate Muslims, in particular must play a leadership role by defending the universal freedom of expression, even in the face of insult, as Christians, Jews and members of other faiths so often do.
See full article: Fitna and the Challenge to Moderate Muslims, By Thomas Haidon FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, April 02, 2008 DLH
DLH, In 145, you ask a very interesting question:
How does Darwinian Fascism/Totalitarianism in classrooms indoctrinate children compared with Islamo-Fascism in classrooms?
Now of course, “fascism” may not be an appropriate term for many Darwinists, given its more or less specific ideological meaning. Having noted that, there are significant abuses of power and manipulations of those not knowing enough to spot the holes, that should give us pause in looking at the comparison. For instance, in recent months, there have been several threads at UD which are very relevant to this question, both in the narrow sense of the classroom, and in the wider sense of the media-promoted, often government funded radical cultural agenda promoted through positions of power and influence, e.g. the recent sub-thread discussion on the Kansas School Board 2007 question-begging attempted re-definition of science backed up by slandering those who challenge it, the one on the earlier Crystal City Atheism conference led by Dawkins, and the thread on how Sweden's education authorities set out to ban ID in private schools (not just public ones). it is worth highlighting a few points: 1 --> First, let us observe again how the radicalised, circa 2007, Kansas School Board has sought to write evolutionary materialism into the “definition” of science taught to children in Kansas -- and by direct implication and extension, elsewhere:
Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural [i.e. in effect, materialist only] explanations for what we observe in the world around us . . . As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural [which is of course an allusion to the Barbara Forrest-style slanderous and atmosphere-poisoning allegation that ID infers tot he supernatural, as opposed to the truth: it infers, on empirical evidence, to intelligent action) causes.
2 --> Now, as the relevant thread showed at length, first this definition is historically and philosophically indefensible and question-begging. But also it is backed up by a sustained destructive slander-based public relations tactic that for instance a leader of the KCFS group and commenter here at UD could only defend by attempted repudiation; which fails once we realise just who Ms Liz Craig was and just what is implied by her position as a PR officer at the time, writing in the KCFS discussion forum [uncorrected by Mr Krebs, the Moderator, or anyone else, on FTK's testimony], and the ever so telling use of OUR:
My [i.e. a KCFS PR officer's] strategy [as declared in their online forum, circa 2005] . . . is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what’s going on and portray them [i.e. those who advocate for objectivity, fairness and balance in science definitions and in teaching about the science of origins] in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc . . . . Our [i.e. KCFS's] target is the moderates who are not that well educated about the issues, most of whom probably are theistic evolutionists . . . . The solution is really political . . .
3 --> Compare here, the statement of the Swedish Minister of Education, on how that nation proposed to regulate PRIVATE, Christian schools:
The Swedish government is to crack down on the role religion plays in independent faith schools. The new rules will include a ban on biology teachers teaching creationism or ‘intelligent design’ alongside evolution. “Pupils must be protected from all forms of fundamentalism,” said Education Minister Jan Björklund to Dagens Nyheter. [“Fundamentalism” is of course an ever-handy smear that targets Christians through taking a word whose roots were in a descriptive term for groups who opposed early C20 Modernist departures from the hisoric Christian positions, by insisting on historic, longstanding Fundamentals of the Christian faith traceable to its C1 founding era, with the improper extension of the term to embrace Islamist radicals, then dragging it back again to make it sound like Christians are equally culpable as Islamofascist terrorists.]
4 --> So nasty is this tactic, that Sam Harris -- commendably – tried to correct it at the Crystal City Atheism conference, but his tempering remarks were not well received by its participants:
While Harris said [agreeing with a theme sounded by Dawkins] he believed science must ultimately destroy [note the violent metaphor, in light of our living in a world in which atheist regimes across C20 slaughtered millions of Christians and at least one evidently continues to do that today . . .] religion, he also discussed spirituality and mysticism and called for a greater understanding of allegedly spiritual phenomena. He also cautioned the audience against lumping all religions together . . . . Specifically, he [Harris] noted that radical Islam was far more threatening than any radical Christian sect, adding that Christians had a right to be outraged when the media treated the two religions similarly . . . . While the audience gave Dawkins a standing ovation, Harris received only polite applause.
5 --> Professor Dawkins' enthusiastically-received speech, by sharpest and saddest contrast, was tellingly revealing:
Dawkins portrayed a black-and-white intellectual battle between atheism and religion. He denounced the "preposterous nonsense of religious customs" and compared religion to racism. [of course, rather ironic givent he views of Darwin as expressed in say his Descent of Man, chs 5 – 6 and other places] He also gave no quarter to moderate or liberal believers, asserting that "so-called moderate Christianity is simply an evasion." "If you've been taught to believe it by moderates, what's to stop you from taking the next step and blowing yourself up?" [which of course refers to the Islamist terrorist suicide bomber tactic, and alludes tot he abusive use of the term “fundamentalist”] he said.
All of this brings to mind the telling point made by Aristotle 2,300+ years ago, in key opening remarks in his The Rhetoric; remarks that fairly drip with painful memories of the now notorious cup of hemlock given to Socrates by his fellow Athenians, after he had been kangaroo courted:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .
We cannot say that we have not been warned. GEM of TKI kairosfocus
How does Darwinian Fascism/Totalitarianism in classrooms indoctrinate children compared with Islamo-Fascism in classrooms? e.g., consider: 'Bush killed' in Palestinian kids TV show DLH
Muslim Protesters Call for the Death of Anti-Islam Dutch Filmmaker It appears that the "Islamofascist" wing is still active! Those claiming Islam is a religion of "peace" together with the rest of us must still address the challenge that the Islamo-fascists call for death of everyone they disagree with and who will not bow to the religion they seek to impose on everyone else. Geert Wildersto edit film to remove copyright objections over the use of the opening/closing cartoon. At FrontPage, Daniel Pipes discusses: Will Europe Resist Islamization? By Daniel Pipes DLH
DLH: Thanks for more than adequately addressing the most recent rabbit trails in this thread and calling us back to the core business:
Consider the voluminous exponentially increasing evidence from biochemistry to medical genetic diseases, genomics and proteomics. We look forward to your evaluation of the cell “factory” with its myriad information processing, regulatory, energy, and transport systems relative to ID vs materialistic evolution. Then on the topic of the thread, please address how that rapidly increasing body of evidence is allowed to be interpreted relative to competing origin theories or ID vs evolution, (including the Origin Of Life, and the Fine Tuning of the Universe.) E.g. the Stephen Myers/ Richard Sternberg saga.
Now, on points to . . . FB, 137: 1] "Purported": I deliberately gave you rope to run off on a tangent instead of addressing the core issue on the merits. You immediately -- and inadvertently revealingly -- pounced on the term "purported" and diverted to the distractor, inferring from it that you had discredited what I had to say, forgetting or neglecting to address the matter in the main on the merits. But in so doing, you actually inadvertently undid the case you are trying to make. For, in using the word, I am emphasising that we were not there in the claimed deep past, so our "reconstructions" are just that: more or less plausible reconstructions, not the past itself. Further, on cases and evidence, there are certain troubling circularities in much of the associated reasoning [index fossils immediately come to mind, and the issue of isochrons that contradict KNOWN dates of lava or ash flows], as for instance the contentious behind- the- scenes debates over dating KNM ER1470 etc brought out most forcibly. But, most of all, we are dealing with the big gap in the epistemology of science here. Namely, that [a] scientific investigations on the presently observed operating factors and patterns are, per methodology, repeatable, testable and reliable (or they would not be "science"). But, and note how I make a careful distinction here, [b] scientifically informed reconstructions of the -- necessarily -- unique past, simply are not. To pass the last off as if it were as established as the former, is to mislead -- whether unintentionally or not. Period. FYI, on personal view: I happen to be a lot more impressed with the evidence of astrophysics than I am with that for the commonly accepted, NDT- and more or less uniformitarian Geology- based reconstructed past on earth. (E.g. just yesterday I had to remark to a senior policy maker here that in the past 10 - 15 years here in M'rat we have seen a pretty good fraction of what was reconstructed as happening across 10 ka, ~ 25 - 15 kya, with our presently active volcano. In short, we need to temper our reconstructions of the past with humility and open-mindedness, especially on assumptions, rates and parameters and boundary conditions. For the case in view, that means we need to be open to a lot nastier behaviour of the volcano than many are wont to accept, thence issues over sustainability of decision making and redevelopment policy. It is worth noting that the officials and scientists have been CONSISTENTLY optimistic in their estimates, and have been caught out napping by the mountain more times than I care to mention. In short, we do not have a good handle on matters such as rates, trend lines and time estimates. So, I simply look at the overall pattern and say we need to assess based on optimistic, moderate and pessimistic scenarios, for scenarios/models are all we have.) FYFI, I am [per models that are acknowledged to be provisional] willing to go along with the general framework for the reconstructed past, insofar as there is a physically anchored and not too question-begging basis for the relevant reconstructions, which acknowledges the limitations at work. I am not willing to concede these reconstructions as practically indisputable facts on the level of the observation that per the mathematics of decay constants [ln2/lambda and all that], a certain isotope has a half life as observed under present circumstances, of 5,600 or so years. [And of course radiocarbon dating is a major part of the reconstruction of the local volcano's past behaviour . . . ] Do you see the difference I am making? Do you see why I think the distinction is valid? If you disagree, why? 2] 2LOT and Radioactivity FYI, I simply gave 2LOT as an example. I am perfectly able [since I was in 6th form longer ago than I want to remember just now] to infer from dN/dt varies as N, to the decay constant, thence resulting half-life -- and indeed, I well recall doing just such calculations in 6th form and thinking about the underlying assumptions that were being neatly glided over, e.g., on C14 dating. (Nor were those assumptions really teased out in higher level physics work that I did. I didn't make a fuss over it, but I saw what was being missed. Now, I am in a position to say a little something about it, and I have.) This, then is my caveat: when we move from model world to actual reality, we need to reckon with too often undiscussed issues, constraints and factors. 3] when you go on to say “purported deep past of the earth” it simply invalidates anything else you might say. This -- as I have shown just now -- is, sadly, a perfect instance of assailing a strawman and incorrectly/ fallaciously inferring therefrom, that the real issue may safely be dismissed. And, BTW, kindly note that it is YOU who have introduced notions of Young Earth Creationism. I have not. Instead, as I outlined above, I adverted to the significant difference between investigations in the present and reconstructions of the past beyond human observation and record. Nor is this issue without relevance to the matter in the main . . . 4] Tying the issue back in For, the inference to design is precisely an inference from the easily repeated -- and so far exceptionless -- present observation that causal factors underlying key change processes can and have long been clustered as chance, necessity, agency. And, in that context, necessity shows itself in natural regularities, leaving highly contingent situations to chance and/or agency. Functionally specified, complex information is a reliably observed distinguishing marker of such agency. So, we have excellent inductive -- and of course therefore provisional [as with all of science] -- grounds for incorporating this principle into our scientifically informed reconstructions of the past where we did not directly observe the causal processes and have no record as such of said processes. Immediately as we do so, we observe in the present life forms with a molecular based nanotechnology that exhibits massive FSCI. We have reason to infer that this same nanotech was at work in the past life forms that have left fossil remains, e.g. -- and directly relevant to the Meyer-Sternberg case -- in what has been termed the Cambrian revolution in the fossil record; requiring for us to account for several dozen phyla and sub-phyla worth of biodiversity, at the point of origin of major biodiversity. Similarly, we see that the inference to the existence of such nanotech also obtains for the origin of said cell-based life; not leas because of the strong commonality of DNA and its code (with minor dialects) across existing life forms. So, we need to account for the origin of the massive FSCI implied, and we know from observation and analysis that FSCI credibly traces to agency; without a significant counterexample within the ambit of our observation. So, now, why is the inference based on scientific principles and observations that we see in the present and have reason to accept would obtain for the past, resisted to the point of slander and career-busting? Let's see . . . 6] 141: The evidence for ID has not been developed to the same level as (say) the evidence for an old earth . . . . The body of evidence for ID, while substantial, is poor compared to that supporting well developed physical sciences such as those used to determine the age of the solar system and planets. Whoa! a --> We have a highly reliable, massively supported and unexceptioned empirical observation in the present, in the very well-known, well developed science of information theory: functional, code-bearing digital information strings that are beyond 500 - 1,000 bite of information storing capacity are invariably the work of intelligent agents, for multiple reasons. [Onlookers, cf my always linked section A.] b --> We have reason to believe that the heart of cell based life forms is precisely such a functional, highly complex code-bearing digital string, DNA: concatenated, encoded 4-state elements, in strings of length 300 - 500k at the lower end, ranging up to about 3 bn at the upper end. At the very first level, 300,000 4 state elements is 600 k bits [1,000 not 1024 "k"s!], corresponding to a config space of order about 10^180,000; vastly beyond the number of quantum states in the observed universe across its generally discussed lifetime [~13.7 BY] and scale [~ 10^80 atoms], about 10^150 states. c --> So, if "the present is the key to the past," then -- if we are to be consistent in making scientifically informed reconstructions of the not- directly- observed- or- recorded past -- we have excellent reason to infer that the same known causal factor that routinely and reliably produces such FSCI in the present as observed in communication systems and analysed through information theory [consider the inference to signal/ message not noise implied in the common ratio, signal-noise ratio] produced it in the past. d --> So, either you surrender the claim that [i] the present is the key to the past or you surrender the claim that [ii] the evidence for ID is substantially/ materially poorer than that for other reconstructions of the past based on scientific observations in the present. e --> Otherwise, you are indulging in selective hyperskepticism, i.e. inconsistent epistemology based on injecting question-begging worldview level assumptions, i.e. evolutionary materialism and/or its handmaiden, so-called methodological naturalism. And, DLH, see why I went where I went? (Also, my actual opinion on the matter is pretty much as above: in light of the underlying inherent epistemological limitations of science, we must be HUMBLE about our reconstructions of and models for the past. And, we should in all honesty teach science students from primary school on up, about the limitations of scientific thinking, modelling and theorising.) 7] It almost seems as if a double standard is in operation. If 10 peer reviewed papers mean something of significance then don’t 100 mean something also? 100,000? A million? At what point do you become a believer? First, number of peer-reviewed papers, especially in a context of polarised institutions, is no index of truth. For, no authority is better than his/her facts, assumptions and reasoning. It is the merits on facts, assumptions and reasoning that count in the end. The above should suffice to show where the real selective hyperskepticism challenge lies: Physician, heal thyself. GEM of TKI kairosfocus
f.blair at 141
move the subject to the levels of evidence required to accept something as “as true as it gets”.
Consider the voluminous exponentially increasing evidence from biochemistry to medical genetic diseases, genomics and proteomics. We look forward to your evaluation of the cell "factory" with its myriad information processing, regulatory, energy, and transport systems relative to ID vs materialistic evolution. Then on the topic of the thread, please address how that rapidly increasing body of evidence is allowed to be interpreted relative to competing origin theories or ID vs evolution, (including the Origin Of Life, and the Fine Tuning of the Universe.) E.g. the Stephen Myers/ Richard Sternberg saga. DLH
DLH - you are quite right, I should have asked before assuming the definition. However I feel compelled to point out that the other meanings you mention don't really put any better spin on the issue. The age of the earth has not been "assumed as such" nor is it accepted as true on "inconclusive grounds". Lets move away from the issue of old v young earth then (KF I'd still be interested to hear your opinion on the matter and by what you meant with your usage of “purported” in that instance) and move the subject to the levels of evidence required to accept something as "as true as it gets". The evidence for ID has not been developed to the same level as (say) the evidence for an old earth. While there is evidence for both, one has a much stronger case then the other. For example, that the earth is old is supported by multiple calibration curves that all just happen to have values that match each other despite being independently generated. Of course, there are also all the peer-reviewed papers, journals and indeed books published on radiocarbon and other forms of dating. The body of evidence, if you will. Yet it appears it is not enough to convince some people. Fair enough, some people might have a higher standard of evidence, or have prior convictions that prevent them from becoming convinced by the evidence. For whatever reason, not convinced. The body of evidence for ID, while substantial, is poor compared to that supporting well developed physical sciences such as those used to determine the age of the solar system and planets. What I find odd is that people can be convinced by the evidence for ID 100% and yet the much larger body of evidence regarding issues such as the age of the solar system and the planets within it is treated with disdain and remains unconvincing. What level of physical evidence would convince you KF and others (over half the ID movers and shakers!) so that the usage of the word “purported” (if used in the way I described to indicate "supposed" or similar) would not be necessary next time you write a similar essay? It almost seems as if a double standard is in operation. If 10 peer reviewed papers mean something of significance then don't 100 mean something also? 100,000? A million? At what point do you become a believer? f.blair
f.blair at 137 There are other meanings for "purported". e.g.: "assumed as such" "commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds" etc. Please ask for explanations rather than jumping to conclusions.
If there is no physical evidence whatsoever beyond some fevered imaginings for a young earth (including re-writing the laws of physics) then what credence can I give to somebody who buys into the young-earth situation, such as you appear to be KF. I believe you have said in the past, as others have here recently that ID does not speak to the age of the earth.
Lets focus on common principles and what is needed to uphold civil society, and developing principles of ID as a scientific theory NOT targeting each other over whether young earth or an old earth is "right" or "wrong". DLH
mohammad.hussein at 134
I do wish you all the best in your endeavors to deconstruct Darwinism. It’s a noble effort that I very much hope succeeds.
Thanks for your encouragement. We welcome you and others to contribute to this effort and to develop and support scientific theory(s) of Intelligent Design that provides a better description of nature and better predictions than the conventional evolution paradigm. On the links, I tried to provide pro-islamic, "neutral", a Jewish scholar, and pro-christian perspectives. This issue of the interpretation of the "sword" surah and abrogation appear to be key factors underlying the difficulty most have with "islamofascism", and the division between moderate and radical Islam. On "dismissed Islam because theologically speaking seeing any goodness in it would threaten your own faith." - there are many people of all faiths who do good deeds. That is not the threat at all. I look forward to your comments on the Williamsburg compact and principles for civil society. DLH
DLH-- thank you for fixing the link. Mohammed does not seem that bad a fellow. A litmus test for a civilized society would be the degree to which views that dissent from that of the majority are allowed i.e. ownership of the Bible/Koran, sale of them equally, distribution of them equally, no discrimination on broadcasts, public readings or proselytization. It has been my opinion that Moslems are afraid of the Bible. That does not seem to be the case with Mohammed, so God bless him. Anyway, what we should do is fight for values and not theology. tribune7
KF I'll respond to your other points in a few hours, but with regard to
its knowledge claims are precisely that: provisional, and withing that context some are a lot more reliable and well-confirmed than others.
You note you trust the second law of thermodynamics. What about the current understanding of radioactive decay? Do you trust that as well? Purported has as one of it's definitions the following:
To have or present the often false appearance of being or intending;
And when you go on to say "purported deep past of the earth" it simply invalidates anything else you might say. If there is no physical evidence whatsoever beyond some fevered imaginings for a young earth (including re-writing the laws of physics) then what credence can I give to somebody who buys into the young-earth situation, such as you appear to be KF. I believe you have said in the past, as others have here recently that ID does not speak to the age of the earth. It's odd then how often the subject arises. KF, if you can trust the second law of thermodynamics completely then what about the other physical laws that relate to it? If our understanding of other laws just as basic as the SLOT can be wrong (and they would have to be wrong for a young earth to be possible) then I doubt we'd be having this conversation as nobody would have been able to understand the properties of matter well enough to put computers together. KF, how old is the earth? And what makes you think the apparent (and confirmed in every way) old age is an illusion? Where is your evidence for that (and I know you are an evidence based person and would not claim such without good reason, not simply because it's in the bible). f.blair
PS: Godel. Some have applied it to nature, viewing the cosmos as in effect a massive computation. Interesting work. kairosfocus
Participants: This thread has in effect split into two major sub-discussions, both of which are important: evolutionary materialist secularism and where it trends, and islamo-fascism [with a sub-discussion on the implications of the principle of abrogation]. I think a note to MH is appropriate as a start point for further discussion, as he is evidently a moderate Muslim who does not want to acknowledge the validity of the relevant history, theology and current course of islamist thought and action. 1] On Islamism, abrogation, jihad and dhimmitude First, I think I can safely speak of my distinguished, Templeton Prize holding Caribbean colleague, Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, that he is beyond reasonable doubt a world-class expert on Islam and on islamism, with deep and very personal familiarity with Islam from his childhood and youth in his native Guyana; now multiplied by unparalleled global level direct knowledge of the key persons, institutions, events and issues across the Muslim world and in the context of interface between that world and the rest of the world, especially those in the suffering churches. BF, which he heads, is the leading global charity that assists the church under dhimmitude – in effect, Islamist apartheid. (And, MH I am quite prepared to back this point to the hilt. Onlookers, simply do a web search, and follow up Bat Ye'Or's work. Answering-Islam.org also has a vast, well-supported and relevant body of resources. Much of the content there is by acknowledged experts and a significant part is by former Muslims themselves. The issue is not the person but the substance on fact and reasoning. A look at the Barnabas Fund site will also be very revealing.) Nor, is it proper to dismiss the testimony and record of others since they happen not to be Muslims; which, onlookers, just happens to be a long established, too often and notoriously exemplified principle of Islamic jurisprudence – in the case of conflicting testimony before Islamic “justice” the testimony of the non-Muslim is immediately dismissed as that simple fact is held to be a character disqualification on truthfulness. And, MH, we have 1400 years of history linked to say Surah 9:5 and 29 ff [and BTW, if in those following ayas and other linked texts, Allah and his prophet could not get basics of Judaism (e.g. status of Ezrah) and Christianity right (and well-poisoning does not count as getting things right), what does that tell us], and a world of current experience consistent with that history to establish the objective truth on the matter. We are not so dumb or ignorant as too many Islamists suppose. [BTW, here, MH – as one familiar with many former ethic Muslims who are Christian leaders in the Caribbean -- you need to plain and straight address the fact of the death sentence on “apostasy” from Islam, which I know from very direct observation, is a serious concern even here in the Caribbean.] Bottomline: the Algerian Moderates are right to have labelled the sort of Muslim Brotherhood inspired militancy that now seeks to take over the world through subjugating it under Allah, his law and his warriors over this century [I have the maps and the relevant documents in my vaults, MH]: Islamofascism. It is you moderate Muslims who need to acknowledge the history and the challenges in the Quran, hadiths and jurisprudence, and find a way of liberating reformation in the teeth of the surging militancy we see and suffer from all across the world. 2] FB, 103: I think you can appreciate the fact that the in the past things that people thought were self evident truth turned out to be wrong after more information was uncovered. And so what? That we are finite and fallible is a general human constraint that imposes provisionality and humility on our reasoning. It does not entail that we should abandon the project of seeking and walking in light of the best and reliable current understanding of the situation. I repeat [and allude to Adler's remark]: when we reject self-evident truth, we end in absurdity, first of all marked by logical incoherence. And, future “facts” are not going to rescue one from such incoherence, which is precisely why reductio ad absurdum is so centrally important in Mathematical proof. [Notice, Adler identifies that there are truths that are in principle corrigible relative to experience, and there by sharpest distinction, there are truths that once we have enough understanding are seen as such necessarily. Try to deny that “the finite whole is greater than its constituent part,” and see where that lands you, logically.] Onlookers, observe further, on the relevant issue of evolutionary materialism, I have taken time to show, step by step, how its monism undermines the credibility of mind and morals. In response FB gives a general remark on how he does not trust self-evident truths as our knowledge and reasoning are in effect provisional – which was not in dispute. That looks like more of a distractor than a substantial response on the material issues and points. Okay, FB, the burden is on you to show that evo mat credibly accounts for the reliability of mind and gets us to a stable foundation for sound morals as well; especially given the history of eugenics, genocide and tyranny costing well over 100 million lives which integrated Darwinism into their foundations and rationales. 3] Experientially anchored? Cf the excerpt above from Adler on the third class of truth: self-evident truth, with its anchor in experience. Sub-excerpting:
One example will suffice to make this clear — the axiom or selfevident truth that a finite whole is greater than any of its parts. This proposition states our understanding of the relation between a finite whole and its parts. It is not a statement about the word “whole” or the word “part” but rather about our understanding of wholes and parts and their relation. All of the operative terms in the proposition are indefinable. We cannot express our understanding of a whole without reference to our understanding of its parts and our understanding that it is greater than any of its parts. We cannot express our understanding of parts without reference to our understanding of wholes and our understanding that a part is less than the whole of which it is a part . . . . Such propositions are neither analytic nor synthetic in the modern sense of that dichotomy; for the predicate is neither contained in the definition of the subject, nor does it lie entirely outside the meaning of the subject. Axioms or self-evident truths are, furthermore, truths about objects understood, objects that can have instantiation in reality, and so they are not merely verbal. They are not a priori because they are based on experience, as all our knowledge and understanding is; yet they are not empirical or a posteriori in the sense that they can be falsified by experience or require empirical investigation for their confirmation.
4] I think it speaks to your naïveté if you think that society can be FORCED to change in a direction it’s opposed to. The events in Germany did not happen in a vacuum, the population at any time could have stopped it, acting as a whole. To put the blame 100% on a few “ruthless men” is oversimplifying far too much to retain a coherent story. On the contrary, the verdict of a lot of very bloody history is plain: societies are vulnerable to ruthless manipulators who game the existing rules, perceptions and balances of forces to seize control of the levers of power and polarise the society in so doing, distorting the ability of people to perceive truth, right and duty to justice. As Aristotle warned so long ago, the das fate of Socrates in mind: our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not as those we make when we are pained and hostile. Once they control those levers, they are in a position to exert coercive force against any organised opposition or emerging leadership. And, they do so, intimidating the majority into silence and compliance. Those who courageously stand up pay for it, too often in blood – which takes us right back to my point about the Barmen Declaration and the White Rose movement from the earlier thread. For that matter, my own name is a reminder of that for me: one of my distinguished relatives [who bore the same name] aid for standing up for the poor in the Assembly by being taken from his sickbed to where martial law was in force once the explosion he warned against happened. He was Kangaroo Courted and hanged, not even being given enough time for his physician to come and testify as to why he was missing from a crucial Vestry meeting; namely his illness (the same one he was suffering from at the time of the trial). Want of that key testimony was of course decisive in the minds of the incompetent militia officers who sentenced him to death. Jamaica's House of Parliament now sits on the site of his home and now bears his name. The names of his gloatingly unjust judges – sadly – are now “forgotten.” Of course the many who are intimidated into compliance – or, worse, become active collaborators and functionaries of tyranny -- are not blameless, but we must understand, in light of very bloody history, the dynamics and power of deception and intimidation when they are backed up by state power. WHAT FRIGHTENS ME ABOUT THE STATE OF WESTERN CIVILISATION TODAY IS THAT PRECISELY THOSE DYNAMICS ARE INCREASINGLY AT WORK. 5] Are you sure rather then “science says” you don’t really mean “a small sub-set of science says”? I am pointing to the manipulative rhetoric that seeks to blanket exploit the air of authority of “Science” in service to all sorts of agendas, often suppressing questions on the assumptions, debates over and limitations of the science. As should be very plain from the context and my words – indeed, the suppression of the other side of the story on the limitations of claims regarding origin of life scenarios and body-plan level macro-evolution are notorious cases in point. 6] I don’t think as a whole science is saying anything about if evolution has or has not made a deity superfluous, and to say that it is is misrepresenting the case significantly. The rhetors who speak in the name of “Science” [and often while wearing literal or figurative lab coats] -- starting with Mr Dawkins and co -- are saying precisely that. Indeed, as a recent long thread shows, they are writing an implicit commitment to evolutionary materialism into their [re-]“definitions” of “Science.” Then they proceed to teach said question-begging historically unjustified and philosophically unsound attempted re-definitions as unchallengeable consensus, and set out on PR strategies to personally attack, slander and destroy the reputations of those who object. 7] what “science says” is not significantly in error in regard to the physical world, don’t you agree? First, science is precisely an empirically anchored provisional exercise so its knowledge claims are precisely that: provisional, and withing that context some are a lot more reliable and well-confirmed than others. I for instance, for excellent reason, trust the second law of thermodynamics, statistical form, far more than I trust the claims of neo-Darwinian theory and associated claimed reconstructions of the history of life and of its chemical evolution-based origin in the purported deep past of the earth. GEM of TKI kairosfocus
DLH, I don't know if this discussion is really very fruitful any longer. The sites you continue to posts aren't one that can be taken seriously. They are not academic; they are not written by Muslims expounding upon their faith, but rather by Christians and others who seek to demonize Islam. If you were really interested in the issue of abrogation you would seek the discussions of the issue found in tafsir (arabic word for a commentary of the Qur'an, in case you aren't aware) of classical and contemporary Islamic scholars. I don't understand why you privilege the interpretations of those with an agenda (clearly the website, www.answering-islam.org has an agenda) over the interpretations of well known Islamic scholars of the past and present. By doing so you imply that Muslims do not even understand their own faith and rather it is only these pseudo-scholars who have suddenly centuries later discovered the "true" Islam (veiled of course to Muslims) and have exposed it for all the world to see. This is incredibly simplistic, not to mention incredibly arrogant. You guys probably know that there are tons of sites on the web exposing violent passages in the Bible, just as there are for the Qur’an. All the arguments you guys are making against the Qur’an can also be made against the Bible. I’m sure you’ve read this verse in Matthew: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10: 34-36). Now all sorts of silly conclusions can be made from this verse, as I’m sure your foes Dawkins and others do. You would object to those sorts of extrapolations made from verses like these, but you hold a double standard for Islam. I really feel as though some of you peruse the sites I give you to find information to support your already established conclusions. My point in posting those links wasn't to address the issue of abrogation but rather to expose you to some of the translated discourse from high religious authorities. Someone mentioned earlier that Islam doesn’t have the equivalent of a golden rule; this is nonsense that is probably not worth a response. But here is a hadith for you guys (hadith= Saying of the Propeht Muhammad): “None of you will truly believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself”. (narrated by Bukhari). For the skeptically inclined, Imam Nawawi the famous Islamic scholar of the 13th century says that brother here means brother in humanity. Someone also said that Islam treats women as mere possessions of men. This is also nonsense. I would encourage you to speak to Muslim women to rid yourself of this misconception. It might be also of some worth to note that Islam granted women the right to own property many centuries before the West. (this begs the question of how property can own property) Someone mentioned the quote about the Palestinian struggle as being one that sanctioned jihad against Jews. This is a misreading; whoever made this interpretation is imposing this notion that the Israel-Palestine struggle is one that is essentially a religious one between Muslims and Jews, in which Muslims are fighting to impose their religion on others. This is NOT the case. It is essentially a political struggle in which religion may be invoked to legitimize and encourage self-defense. Palestinians have lost their land and been expelled from their homes. Millions continue to live under military occupation. No one is fighting the Israelis because they are Jewish. This is an important point to understand. 2:62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. My advice to you all is to get to know Muslims. Visit your nearby mosque, you might be surprised by the warmth you will be met with. I hold no grudges against any of you though many of the comments I’ve encountered I’ve found repulsive. I think one thing I do want to say before I go is that I think you all should ask yourself whether you have dismissed Islam because theologically speaking seeing any goodness in it would threaten your own faith. It’s no secret that Christians have had to grapple with the idea of how God would allow a new world faith to emerge after Jesus that acquired so many adherents, many among whom were once Christian. Many people, in order to defer the problem that this might imply theologically, are content in seeing Islam as a religion of evil. If one is to be honest with oneself one has to ask whether this anxiety plays a large part in the bias against and utter dismissal of Islam and also the demonization of Muslim peoples. I do wish you all the best in your endeavors to deconstruct Darwinism. It’s a noble effort that I very much hope succeeds. I still maintain that Muslims and Christians have a great deal in common, and dialogue is the best way forward. The ultimate aim of the Prophets of God, of course, was peace. P.S. I love Jesus!!! mohammed.husain
Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam http://www.barnabasfund.org/resources/resources_02.php Dr Sookhdeo's recent work analyses the rise of Islamic violence worldwide in the modern world. Quoting from an extensive range of Muslim and other sources, he examines the present situation in the context of Islamic teaching on violence and war, past and present, and suggests a range of possible responses. (670 pages, hard back, Isaac Publishing) "This book is long overdue. Patrick Sookhdeo has put together a stunning in-depth analysis of perhaps the greatest threat facing the Western World today. I strongly commend it to anyone attempting to understand the issues surrounding global jihad, particularly policy makers and those charged with executing the responses required. Our current campaign plans lack both clarity and understanding - this book provides both, and all those engaged in the formulation of future plans should read what he has to say very carefully indeed - their efforts will be well rewarded." Major General (retired) Tim Cross CBE, Army Adviser to the House of Commons Defence Committee CN
-----“The Stand of Rajab 04 1426H /August 09, 2005 A.D. In “Peace is the Islamic basis for establishing relations with others” he states: -----‘We call for a humanistic and civilised world that accepts others and pluralism, a world where everyone deal with others on the basis of an objective and scientific study and not on subjective and ideological slogans.’” It is important to know what the word “peace” means in this context. Muslim brotherhood Sayyid Qutb, explains: “When Islam strives for peace, its objective is not that superficial peace which requires that only that part of the earth where the followers of Islam are residing remain secure. The peace which Islam desires is that the religion (i.e. the law of society) be purified for God, that the obedience of all people be for God alone, and that some people should not be lords over others. After the period of the Prophet---peace be upon him---only the final stages of the movement of Jihaad are to be followed; the initial or middle stages are not applicable.” In other words, Islam is a religion of peace that will come when everyone is Muslim or at least under the subjugation of a Muslim state. To obtain this "peace" they must wage war. StephenB
mohammad.hussein Per your reference to Sayyid Ali Khamenei, I found: Palestinian issue, the focal point (2006/04/14 - 20:51)
"The values of Jihad and martyrdom are revived, and the genuine power, that of a nation resolute in its spirit of firmness and sacrifice, recovers its place in the political equations of Palestine and the region. "The noble blood of martyrdom-seeking youths and the presence of dauntless warriors within the struggle invalidate all calculations f worldly materialists and hedonists, opening a new arena where blood triumphs over sword.
It appears that he advocates Jihad and martyrdom against Jews. You referred to: Sayyed Fadlallah The Stand of Rajab 04 1426H /August 09, 2005 A.D. In "Peace is the Islamic basis for establishing relations with others" he states:
We call for a humanistic and civilised world that accepts others and pluralism, a world where everyone deal with others on the basis of an objective and scientific study and not on subjective and ideological slogans.
That sounds wonderful. However, he also acknowledges: recognizes that some Muslims:
They have imposed their deviated understanding of Islam on others, making it very easy to accuse others of non-belief and even to issue fatwas ruling that those accused of non-belief could be killed.
Therein lies the difficulty of living in a civil society when there are those who seek to impose their beliefs on others by coercion. DLH
tribune7 at 128 I fixed 128. Please address the topic of principles essential to civil society vs coercion of beliefs on others whether from science or religion, (rather than arguing one religion vs another). DLH
You’d be better off learning about the religion from those whom Muslims consider to be its representatives."
Indeed. Thanks for your two links. Yet one can not learn from those who mention nothing on a subject. Unfortunately, neither of those authorities have anything to say about "abrogate" or "abrogation", nor about the "golden rule". Can one not learn both from the advocates and opponents of a position? Consider the following expositions, particularly from the issue of how to maintain a civil society with inalienable rights when some seek to enforce their positions on others. Naskh (tafsir)(abrogation) Abrogation claims of Muslim Scholars Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam, David Bukay Middle East Quarterly Fall 2007, pp. 3-11
Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just.
Abrogation in the Qur'an Abrogated Verses Of the Quran - Evidence from Islamic Sources Abrogation in the Koran - ANWARUL HAQQ, 2006 Episode 22 F.Zakaria Back to the foundations of civil discussion, may I ask you to review the following and discuss its principles relative to what is essential to civil society: The Williamsburg Charter - A Celebration and Reaffirmation of the First Amendment. DLH
Mohammed Here's keeping it in context. Beware of false prophets. tribune7
DLH, This whole issue of abrogation applies only to verses that contain legal injunctions. So for instance, the verse that states that alcohol is forbidden abrogates the ones that permit it. Verses with ethical content can never be abrogated; this has been the consensus of Muslim scholars over centuries. DLH, the website you quoted about abrogation is one again that clearly has an agenda to "expose" Islam. It is not written by Muslims, but rather people who are clearly hostile to the religion. That is not dialogue. I can only conclude that you are not interested in really learning about Islam. Why not turn to the highest Muslim scholars for information about their religion: Ayatullahs in Iran or the sheikhs of al-azhar? Trust me, they are far more intelligent, and you would find that to be so if you kept an open mind. This is the website of one of the highest religious authorities in Lebanon: http://english.bayynat.org.lb/. This is the website of the supreme leader of Iran, also a very high religious authority. http://www.leader.ir/langs/en/index.php. You'd be better off learning about the religion from those whom Muslims consider to be its representatives. Ektasis, I have a very favorable view of Sufism. In the modern era its had a complex history in which its obtained an identity of its own. But if you look at Muslim history you will see that a very large number of Muslim scholars have been initiates into Sufi orders, and Sufism in general has pervaded Muslim culture in pre-modern times. mohammed.husain
Mohammed By their fruit you will recognize them. tribune7
f.blair -- Does darwinism cause cultural decline? Yes If a large % of the USA believes in a god, and they do, and yet somehow there is still cultural decline It' s there, it's just not as bad as Europe which no longer believes in God. tribune7
More material verses of the Qur'an of interest: “Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel (evil) with what is better: then will he between whom and you was hatred become as it were your friend and intimate.” (41: 34) “O Mankind! We created you from a single [pair] of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other [not that you may despise each other]. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is [he who is] the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted [with all things].” (Koran 49: 13) “Invite [all] to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His path, and who receive guidance.” (16: 125) mohammed.husain
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply