14

SUBMISSION

Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
164 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Fifteen years ago, I was introduced to a young man who had escaped from Paris. Paris? Yes, Paris. He was the oldest son of a father who was an orthodox Muslim. They were quite well off. He was not too sure of his father's business. He was 20, had excellent grades and was a top athlete. After he graduated, his father informed him it was now time for him to go back to his town of origin and study to become an Imam. However, he was raised as a Parisian, speaking perfect French as well as Arabic. He studied the Koran but as he grew up he contrasted his world of Christian sophistication with his duties and attitudes of a Muslim cleric. No comparison, Unknown to his father, he took increments of "spending" money from the ATM card his father gave him and instead of living expenses he had saved the money until when he was to return to his Arabic roots, he traded in his plane ticket for one to London. I won't detail how he changed his identity and wound up in NYC, and eventually the heartland. Here is his view of Islam:
(I have edied it for brevity). "Islam is based on virtue; the very word means 'submission.'' It is truly not a religion, nor is it merely a set of beliefs but it is an entire way of life. The Koran doesn't simply govern everyone's conduct it is extended to all aspects of society. It regulates law, war, peace, education, economics, sexual conduct, trade and family. Sharia governs everything. It mitigates what it considers the rot of all other beliefs."

Between the Koran and Sharia, if one is to believe, there is no possible way that any Muslim true believer can ever be at peace with any other philosophy or way of life. All of those seeking peace will inevitably be frustrated because they are dealing with shadows. A charade being put on by Muslims for the benefit, eventually of themselves. All those Western peacemakers know that, yet they continue to participate in a game where the rules all favor their opponents. Everyone, Obama, Trump, Bush, Clinton, knows this, yet they continue to go through the motions -- and my question is, why on earth do they continue to do it.?


All Comments

  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's a joke. In those days, (the 50's ) The running joke was everything was always blamed on the drummer. Unless that is, if it was his band. I tend to forget that I'm a few decades past the big band era. Blame the drummer likely originated because he was the only one who didn't have others in the band who also played his instrament(s). (Pianists and singers don't count.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Whoo!
    Having been an atheist most of my life, I guess that I'm naive when it comes to religious dogma. I think I'll track down more info.
    However, I did see a movie called Dogma which should be a must for every atheist who enjoys religious comedy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They are not like what you describe but I understand your experiences.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, saying it doesn't belong here is not censorship. He can believe whatever he wants to and there are a appropriate places for him to do it. It is contrary to the purpose of this private forum. It's not well-expressed opinion, it's stock religious dogma substituting for rational discussion and demanding to be taken seriously.

    There is nothing boring about rational discussion without dogmatic mysticism. Rational does not mean "the same". His "beauty" and "poetry" of the Koran and insistence on submitting to "discipleship" and that "We each have to choose which master to follow" ought to be offensive and inappropriate to everyone here, especially since it has been explained to him many times. He ought to have enough sense on his own to realize that. Like the obnoxious Jehova's Witnesses he does not. His posts also often contain false personal attacks, insults, and outrageous misrepresentations in his hostility and arbitrariness. Rejecting this is not censorship.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    EWV:
    I'm neither defending nor attacking the content of blarman. However, by saying his opinion doesn't belong in the Gulch is censorship. If every idea and opinion in this forum is the same, then there's no need for the forum, not to mention the boredum factor. It is my opinion that anyone exhibiting a well expressed opinion has a right to express it. Those persons who run the Gulch have the ability to censor if they wish, and they do so, but very rarely. They seem to be against the personally offensive posts more than those with mystical or non-rational opinions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Even the Cat knew better than to confuse a fork in the road with submission to a master.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Then how would a shotgun help? Maybe your thinking of MIRVs with GPS targeting.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The necessity to make choices in life is not an excuse for religious mysticism. Fundamental choices require reason, which is not possible with a mentality of submission to an alleged "true poetry and brilliance" of the Koran or any other intellectual "master". The choice is not which master to subjectively cling to and follow.

    A rational individual rejects "following a path" in the footsteps of a mystic Pied Piper. Rejection of dogmatic mysticism is not "spending your life wandering the road without an end goal". We each make our own "path" for our own lives. Blarman's following a "master" and submitting to "discipleship" is the opposite of having one's own goals and the opposite of a rational morality based on the nature of man and his requirement to live. We do not "each have to choose which master to follow" or submit to "true discipleship walking the path of the master". That is disgusting.

    Blarman's repetitive, obnoxiously dogmatic and subjectivist promotion of obsequious religion is the diametric opposite of the reason and individualism illustrated and explained in Atlas Shrugged. It does not belong on an Ayn Rand forum. Neither do his demands that his subjectivism be taken seriously and neither do his repetitive personal insults towards those who reject it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Cheshire Cat was wise indeed. Over the years, I have found myself quoting from Alice or Looking Glass more and more. It is a book to be read on several differing levels. The Walrus and the Carpenter is my favorite.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Everyone has to choose what path they will follow in life. And whatever path you go down, you become a disciple of that path to the exclusion of others. How you choose that path and what moral values the path holds are yours to decide - as is the decision not to continue to follow a path. Life continues to move forward regardless of one's indecision.

    Lewis Carroll's Classic "Alice in Wonderland" has probably one of the most compelling arguments to this I know of. Alice comes to a fork in the road and while she sits pondering the Cheshire Cat appears. She asks it which way she should go. His response is to ask where she is trying to get. She answers that she doesn't know. And his response is then that it doesn't matter.

    If you spend your life wandering the road without an end goal - you'll get exactly where you intended to go: nowhere in particular. It is only those who have a goal in mind that get somewhere at all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Would not have worked for your drummer friend. Polygamy is illegal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A shotgun wedding is one in which the groom is coerced by the bride's dad holding the weapon aimed at the groom. If the groom had the shotgun he'd be in parts unknown before you could play a paradiddle.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your comment on shotguns might be more appropriate, though an understatement. Drummers don't make you feel this dirty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Having traveled with a band in my youth, I can testify that drummers cannot be trusted with women unless shotguns are involved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They made the choice to acquiesce to the "beautiful" and "poetic" savage mysticism. Regardless of what they were taught they are responsible for what they do and anyone has a right to defend against it just as you have a right to protect yourself from any savage animal, human or not.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo