Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:
|
|
|
I have been reading a fair few articles by and interviews with Ibn Warraq and I want to test out one of his hypotheses. Warraq believes that, in large part because of the legacy of Edward Said, Western academics, journalists and commentators more generally find it difficult to criticise Islam and that “charges of "Islamophobia" are hurled at those who dare to criticize that most criticizable of all religions.”(1) To see if this really is the case I have been putting up posters that could be seen as critical of Islam around my neighbourhood with my email attached, to see what kind of responses I might get. Here is a selection of the posters (they look boring here, they have pretty fonts and whatnot in real life) - I would be fascinated to hear your responses to them:
Words of Wisdom from the Religion of Peace:
Sura iv: 34 - Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, & because they spend of their property (for the support of women).
So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that
which Allah hath guarded.
As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them & banish them to beds apart; and beat them.
Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.
1.3 billion Muslims can’t be wrong!
…
Words of Wisdom from the Religion of Peace:
Sura v: 51 - Believers! take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another.
Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers.
Sura iv: 101 - The unbelievers are your sworn enemies.
Sura lx:4 - We renounce you (i.e. the idolaters): enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah
only…
1.3 billion Muslims can’t be wrong!
…
Words of Wisdom from the Religion of Peace:
Sura ix: 5-6 - "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them."
Sura viii: 12 - "I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip."
Sura viii: 39-42 - "Say to the Infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients!
Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's."
1.3 billion Muslims can’t be wrong!
…
Words of Wisdom from the Religion of Peace:
Prime Minister Mahathir, to the 10th Islamic Summit Conference, 2003:
The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them…
They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong; so they may enjoy equal rights with others…
Of late because of their power and their apparent success they have become arrogant. And arrogant people, like angry people will make mistakes, will forget to think.
They are already beginning to make mistakes…There may be windows of opportunity for us now and in the future.
We must seize these opportunities.
1.3 billion Muslims can’t be wrong!
…
Words of Wisdom from the Religion of Peace:
Sura ix: 29 - Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden , and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.
…
Muhammad to his followers:
“Kill any Jew that falls into your power.”
(from the biography of the prophet by Ibn Ishaq.)
1.3 billion Muslims can’t be wrong!
…
So, what do you think of these. Are you offended? and if so, are you offended by what I’ve done or the way I’ve presented these quotes, or by the quotes themselves?
I would be interested to know, I want to believe that Ibn Warraq is wrong about people in the west, I want to believe that we do have the balls to defend our own culture and criticise others’ when they encourage violence, misogyny and hatred. Now, before you get any big ideas – I am not attacking Muslims. You might have noticed that in the posters, I make no comments on the texts, I simply present them to the audience. This is so that I can see what it is that offends people – if it is the text itself, then their problem is with the Qur’an and other Islamic sources, if it is with me or the way I have presented the texts – then they’ll have to explain what exactly I have written that is offensive. Now, the “1.3 billion Muslims can’t be wrong” line might be taken as offensive, but it is just a comic touch and, in fact, is either true (if one believes in the Qur’an, then Muslims aren’t wrong) or it is ironic (coming, as it does, after an offensive piece of text and obviously implying its own opposite).
Well, let’s see what people be saying, thinking, drinking. Give me your answers and your dancers. Throw at me opinions and womens….was that a stretch? Oh yes! No Rhyme!
A. Hine
(1) Ibn Warraq, in Jamie Glazov, Defending the West, from www.frontpagemagazine.com <accessed 22nd of July, 2008>
Too long have I been gone! Immersed in the petty theiveries of my ideological constructs by my own inquiries! Anyways!
I have been gone a long time, working, writing music, reading about science, Israel, conquest, myth, Pan-Arabic imperialism and a million other things. I plan on making a real return soon with articles about these things and more - GM Foods and the Idiots that Fear Them is a potential title to look out for.
But for now, be satisfied with this letter to the editor (written under a pseudonym) of the Australian Rationalist Journal, in response to his bold assertion that terrorism has everything to do with Western actions in the Middle East and nothing to do with Islam.
I am writing in response to Kevin Childs’ article, Failing to learn from history (Australian Rationalist Journal, June 2008). There was much in this article with which I took issue but I shall deal here with the statement, made by Robert Fisk and endorsed by Childs, that “[t]here is no connection between Islam and “terror””. Though I agree with Childs’ assessment of the Iraq war as immoral, I find his assertion that terrorism is connected to Western actions but not to Islam surprising in a magazine priding itself on rationality. Western policies are indeed used to excuse terrorism by Jihadis, and aggressive policies naturally create resentment, but to assert that it is Western actions alone that lead to terrorism is demonstrably false.
I’m sure Mr. Childs will at least agree that we cannot blame the murder of thousands in New York in 2001 on the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, I imagine he can cast his mind back to the seventh century when Muhammad proclaimed “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah’”, or perhaps Mr. Childs might concede that the men who sawed off Nicholas Berg’s head chanting ‘Allahu akbar’ had some religious motivation. Or he could explain why terrorist leaders themselves discuss their projects in religious terms. In an interview in 2005 Ridda Sayyan (a suspected terrorist) said:
[F]or more than a thousand years Islam ruled the world…capitalism will fall soon, we offer the alternative: an Islamic program. But the West is not willing to try it…
Asked by his interviewer if he approved of Bin Laden’s statements that one should kill Jews and Westerners, Sayyan replied:
Osama Bin Laden didn’t say you have to kill this or that person – the Qur’an says this…the Qur’an says…that Muslims are supposed to fight those who go against God’s will.
According to Sayyan, the terrorist groups are not reacting to Western oppression but seeking to establish an Islamic empire and Islam justifies murder to this end, thus providing both the impetus and the rationale for terrorism. Efraim Karsh’s book, Islamic Imperialism, sets forth Islam’s imperial past and argues lucidly that modern terrorism reflects a continuation of Islam’s imperialist tradition. This argument certainly seems to match the facts better than Childs’ hypothesis.
I do not contend that all Muslims harbour such beliefs – I would not be so deluded as to think that I can crystallize the views of a diverse group of people. But I do believe, and the Jihadis seem to agree with me, that contemporary terrorism is driven by Islamic beliefs and imperial ambition. The West is not perfect, but to postulate that terrorism against us is our fault is a gratuitous example of blaming the victim.
I challenge Kevin Childs to justify the claim that there is no connection between Islam and terrorism. I am open-minded and I hope that he can sway my view or at least clarify his position for me, until then – Salaam.
Joseph Tafra, Carlton, VIC
15th of July 2008
I will keep you updated on this stand-off. Kevin Childs is the editor of the Australian Rationalist Journal, so I imagine he will be a formidable adversary. I am pleased about this and look forward to some verbal sparring, victory is not sure and I may have to retreat firmly into cultural relativism under Childs' enlightened blows. But we shall see.
TTFN,
A. Hine
I propose, in typical mode of unencumbered confidence, to solve a Zen paradox without resorting to silliness or losing my ego/rational mind. I like my ego and my rationality and see no good that could come from losing them.
‘If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?’
This is a koan and, unless I am mistaken, it is supposed to be so paradoxical, to scale such heights of the human intellect, that at it’s mere contemplation rational categories and analysis flee like mist and reveal the true Buddha-nature that warbles sweet
within us all. That is a caricature of course, but how am I supposed to win if I don’t misrepresent my opponents?
Now, the first time I heard this koan, there were about five seconds where I thought, This is obvious, of course it makes a sound! then a further few where I wondered But perhaps… Just as I was about to follow this ‘perhaps’ into realms of bliss unimagined by even the most blandly nirvanacised monk, I realised that the answer, after a little analysis, was a clear No. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear, it DOES NOT make a sound. In fact, my little unenlightened brain went on to conclude that no tree falling in any forest anywhere, anytime ever made a sound. That might sound stupid to you, in which case you are probably stupid…no that’s not what I meant…hold on. Ah, yes!
That conclusion might sound strange to you, in which case I offer an explanation, such as I can give without resorting to violence. First, we should analyse the question itself: ‘If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?’ The important terms in this question are ‘no one around to hear it’ and ‘sound’ – when we start to question the interaction between the hearer and the heard, between some “one” and some ‘sound’, we begin to see the solution to this problem.
Next, we should clarify what the important terms mean* - ‘no one around to hear it’ can be broken down into two terms that we must define: ‘no one’ and ‘hear’. ‘No one’ clearly refers to living organisms, not specifically humans – or we would read ‘no people’ – nor specifically lawyers – or we would read ‘no scumbags’ – but simply ‘no organisms’. ‘Hear’ is a key word in this question, it’s inclusion means that if a deaf man were present at the proverbial falling, then he would not change the situation, as he could not be ‘around to hear it’. Thus we have no organisms with the power to hear present when the tree falls – this is important.
‘Sound’ is the other key term, the crux of the solution actually. It is the ‘sound’ in the question that causes problems – surely, we think, if a tree falls it must make a sound, even if no-one hears it. The tree falls and it hits the ground – BOOM – the sound is there. But here’s the problem: by putting ourselves in the situation we automatically screw up our thought experiment because no one should be there, it’s as if we had sneezed all over a stool sample of the mind. I think there is a solution to this problem, though: a situation in which we can put ourselves without sullying the laboratory. We have all been to a fireworks display, and I’ll hazard a guess that most of us have often found ourselves a long distance from the main event. When I watch fireworks I love trying to decipher which sound belongs to which explosion because, as you have no doubt noticed, there is a significant delay between seeing each lovely burst and hearing the sharp pop that makes so many infants cry like soldiers in their mother’s arms. Now, imagine that the space between you and the explosion of the fireworks was devoid of any other people, of any birds, of any wombats, of any walruses, of any ‘one’ that ‘hears’. In that case, between the explosion of the rocket and your hearing it, there would be nothing that we could comprehensibly term ‘sound’ between you and the explosion, only vibrations in the air, the air that has no ears. For sound, like vision, is an emergent property, not intrinsic to trees falling, rockets bursting or any other cacophonous happening, but only evanescing when the vibrations created by such events reach an organ capable of apprehending them as sound – ‘sound’ is not something floating around ‘out there’, but is the subjective qualia of hearing. When we have realised this, we can see that it is not the tree falling that makes the ‘sound’, but our own ears and brains - we can substitute ‘can it be heard’ for ‘does it make a sound’ (as they are essentially the same thing) in our koan – making the ludicrous sentence:
‘If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, can it be heard?’
I submit that this is a fair analysis of the question, and that the ludicrous nature of the sentence above is merely the revelation of sophistic trickery in the original koan. The koan relies on the fact that it is difficult to think about the question without putting oneself in the situation thus sullying it, and on the ambiguity of meaning in the word ‘sound’. We speak of sound as travelling to us, but this is only because we know that we will hear the vibrations referred to as sound when they reach us – if, however, one were deaf it would be easier to see that the vibrations are not sounds until they are heard. I further submit that, as this is the case, then at least to this koan we can say ‘We beat you Buddhists’ and stick out our naughty little tongues.
Well, hope some of you bore (no pun intended) with me and enjoyed that little bit of Western philosophical priggishness. If you don’t agree with me go to hell, but on your way offer me some counter-arguments and critiques so that we can debate openly and think freely all the way to our damnation.
*I have not included “If a tree falls in the forest” as an important part of the question, because it could just as well be “If a pool ball falls in a toilet” – any event we associate with noise will suffice.
The difference between Jean-Paul Sartre and Jean Prevost is clear. The latter was noble and brave, his soul “a fire that suffers if it doesn’t burn"1, the former was an ignoble coward. It seems that Prevost was also smarter – less fooled by old wives’ wisdoms, such as “the pen is mightier than the sword.” While Sartre ignored his “infinite responsibilities”2 and instead penned subtly subersive plays,3 keeping a relative peace with the Nazi/Vichy government, Prevost seized a gun, joined the resistance, and died fighting those who had occupied his beloved Paris. The pen, you see, is only mighty when backed by the sword. Nazi pens sent innocent people screaming to the camps, men’s pens, in the 19th Century, sent ‘hysterical’ women unwillingly to the madhouse, but the pens of the powerless achieve little in the Real World. It should come as no surprise that it was the tools of Jean Prevost, not those of Sartre, that stopped the Nazis – guns, bombs, knives, tanks, planes and the lost lives of American, British, Russian and Australian men and women won the war, and prevented the loss of the free west – the greatest and most fruitful civilisation the world has ever known. When it comes to fundamental a priori disagreements between cultures, violence is the true arbiter of values: in certain cases, might does make right.
A good example in the current day is the potentially endless War on Terror,* in which we find ourselves hopelessly entangled. Of course, ‘war’ can only be used euphemistically here, in rather the same way that dancing can remind us of sex, although it is not technically copulation. This is not a real war because there is no opposing army, no clear way to win, no clear objectives. The loose and hideous collective of ignorant Islamist pigsticks that downed the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon, killed my countrymen in Bali, and splintered iconic red buses throughout London keep themselves ghostly and well-hidden, in the manner of true cowards everywhere. Perhaps it is for this reason that the Coalition of the Willing have dragged our armies and taxes away to the desert lands to fight pointless wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq. In order to pretend that they are less terrified than we are of our invisible and ruthless enemies. To pretend that this is just another war, and to quench the powerful lusts – born from vivid midnight visions of gold, oil, ancient crusades, and the tight, trimmed quims of exotic beauties – that torment their souls.
But I digress. If this War on Terror ever became bona-fide; if the bearded, effeminate Bin Laden ever raised a true army – disciplined, determined, and brave enough to fight with valour, as did their Islamic ancestors, in open combat. If this happened, some interesting questions and possibilities would arise. The first question, of course, is to do with me, and those like me. I am a writer, a peace lover, a liberal – I support tolerance over hatred, debate over violence, understanding over ignorance and a thousand other chic intellectual positions. And yet, if this strange and, at times, hideous society in which I dwell came under serious attack I like to think that I would follow the path of Prevost, and fight with all my strength to destroy those who would crush me and mine. Throw away words like ‘dialogue’, ‘multi-culturalism’, ‘non-violence’ and adopt the Philosophy of Horror, so eloquently espoused by a madman in Apocalypse Now. “The will…perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure…to utilise (the) primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgement.“
[ Click here to read more ]
I just finished reading a truly disturbing article on the Canadian news site canoe.ca.
It seems that a summit of Muslim leaders have decided to launch a legal assault on the very foundations of free speech and freedom of expression. Such is the small mindedness of these decisions that "Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad." Cartoons. They want to take legal action against free western nations for cartoons which they found offensive.
I trust in the strength of democratic governments not to cave in to this kind of idiocy, but I write this article in earnest entreaty of my fellow countrymen, and others in the west, not to let this kind of insidious horse-shit take hold of your minds and start to seem fair and liberal, don't let it start to seem 'tolerant.' It is the opposite of tolerance. It is sometimes easy, in a time where Muslims and Islam are often caricatured and treated unfairly in public perception, to think that maybe it would be okay to censor ourselves just a little, to not be so offensive - to hold certain things sacred - but therein lies the danger! We cannot and should not self-censor under pressure. Self-censorship out of fear is the first step towards legal censorship. If we allow ourselves to say that one thing is too sacred to make fun of, - say the Prophet Muhammad - even to the point of protecting it by law, then we open the floodgates for the realignment of church and state, and for the loss of any true free speech that we have.
[ Click here to read more ]
"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury. For the same reason, we may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one. But as soon as mankind have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion (a period long since reached in all nations with whom we need here concern ourselves), compulsion, either in the direct form or in that of pains and penalties for non-compliance, is no longer admissible as a means to their own good, and justifiable only for the security of others."
[ Click here to read more ]
Below is a poem I wrote expressing my view that there is no moral code running through the universe, especially not one that in any way effects causality. That is, I believe that avery action, good or bad, has consequences (and motives), that are 'good', 'evil', noble, mundane etc., and that no action has an intrinsically good or bad nature. I would like to know people's thoughts on this topic in general (one that endlessly fascinates me), and on the thoughts and ideas in the poem especially (including emotional reactions, and philosophical critiques)
Shank!
[ Click here to read more ]
More Posts
8 Posts dating from April 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
Alexander Hine's Blogs
314 Vote(s)
1 Comment(s)
5 Post(s)
24 Vote(s)
1 Comment(s)
3 Post(s)
|
|
|
Add Comments
Read More
Comments (1)
