Resource for The Hesperado: Transcript of "Television" and "traeh" on the evil of Islam

This transcript comes from the comments field of this Jihad Watch article.

Transcript:

Television said:

Robert's HYCAEIT seems to be that there is an "Islam" that is evil and dangerous, but that because it is only a central, crucial, gigantic chunk of a larger "Islam" that is ethically and culturally variegated, then he can't condemn "Islam"

A crucial part of the statement above is where you say the evil kind of Islam is "a central, crucial, gigantic chunk of..."Islam..." You say here not "the" central feature, rather, "a" central feature.

Television said:

The pivotal problem with Robert's approach here is that the smaller Islam that Robert condemns, by screaming implication, on a daily basis is avowed by him to be not some peripheral, detachable part of the larger Islam, but its very heart -- central, crucial and vital.

Not quite. He doesn't avow this dark Islam to be Islam's "very heart" -- all Robert does is argue that the dark Islam is some substantial part of Islam's very heart. "Substantial" can mean "the vast majority", "bare majority", "plurality", perhaps even "big minority"; substantial can mean various things, and it seems to me Robert has intentionally not tried to pin this down. It's too difficult, both to ascertain and to persuade others of.

It seems to me you have unnecessarily assumed that if item "A" is not peripheral, then not only is it the central element in the core; it is also the only central element in the core. Perhaps you would be correct to do so. In any event, you will find it difficult, though not necessarily impossible, under current circumstances, to generate broad consensus around this distinction between periphery and center. You will find it easier if you use quantitative language: "75% of Muslims believe x, while only 25% of Muslims believe y"; "94 violent statements in the Koran, and only 20 tolerant statements, which latter have been cancelled by the Koran's verses of abrogation." But as soon as you introduce terms of quite complex and often ambiguous meaning, like "center" and "periphery," you create problems for yourself in persuading people. If you can solve those problems, more power to you.

Television said:

In my book, a central, crucial, vital heart of something is that something, and the rest, no matter how many-splendored its "tapestry" seems, is, ethically speaking, window-dressing...

Pragmatically speaking, you are right here, or often you will be right. But in terms of "truth," it is harder to establish that the peripheral practicioners are not, somehow, at least part of the central Islam. In arguing against those who make that countercase, my guess is that you will find yourself backing up your own case with specific examples and quantitive observations, and explaining that what you mean by "central" is some quantitative predominance, of Muslim actions, Koran verses, Sharia opinions. Then why go to the trouble with "center" and "periphery" in the first place? Just start from the quantitative and specific. Leave terms (like central and peripheral) that have multiple ways of being understood, out of your rhetoric as much as possible, or at least leave them till after you have made your case based on specifics and quantities, and then explain that when you use ambiguous terms like central and peripheral, your only meaning intended is precisely what you have just explained of specifics and quantities.

Television said:

...and if that heart is evil and dangerous, then the whole body is a Frankenstein monster -- made more dangerous for its distracting camouflage that would obfuscate the condemnation.

I partially yield to you on this, as I have in another post. To some degree, the evil parts of Islam, parasite-wise, use and exploit any part of Islam that is good. Especially where evil is dominant, the remnants of good will tend to subserve and strengthen that evil in some ways. I can only go part way with you on this though, because the remnants of good, even while they may paradoxically sometimes strengthen a dominant evil, remain nevertheless good in some ways and no doubt also sometimes restrain the dominant evil. So I partly disagree, partly agree.

Television said:

Robert and you seem to be confusing the aesthetic level with the ethical level.

Rather I suspect you are confusing the pragmatic/ethical level with the level of truth. Pragmatically speaking, one can sometimes adopt the shorthand you wish to adopt about Islam, and in practice shorthand may often be necessary and sufficient ethically. But in terms of realities and truth, any formula or statement is at best an extremely accurate, not perfectly accurate, shorthand. Yes, this is true even of the Nazis. It is true of everything.

Your argument with Robert may be about strategy, rather than about truth. You acknowledge, I guess, that a universal generalization will be imprecise. You seem to feel however that the imprecision involved is too insignificant to stop one justifiably making the universal generalization. Or maybe you don't really want a universal generalization, but simply a broader generalization than Robert seems willing to make at times. Robert, for all we know, might agree with you on the relative insignificance of the imprecision of your universal generalization about Islam, but disagree with you on the way of treating that "small error". He may disagree on how to treat it, for reasons humanistic or strategic, or both.

Alternatively, Robert might disagree with you not only about the right way of handling the inadequacy of your universal generalization in this case; he might also disagree about the degree of inadequacy of your universal generalization, and think the exceptions to the general rule are more common than you allow.

Television said:

You make much of "Robert's reportorial, specifics-based approach", but no one, not even the AP wire, is or can be wholly and merely data: there is a guiding interpretive ideology behind Robert's choice of data, presentation of data, explanation of data, day in and day out.

I agree partly; this is an excellent point such as one comes to expect frequently from you, Television. (Actually, from my own TV here at home I've come to expect the opposite of excellent points!) However, there are different kinds of selection. There is tendentious selection, and wholesome selection (i.e., something close to choiceless awareness). There are also differences of degree and even of kind between levels of generalization and specificity. The kind of "selection" and "interpretation" that Robert does remains close to "data" (even if "data" and "interpretation" cannot be strictly distinguished, except by a further "interpretation" that does the distinguishing). But because Robert remains close to data, others can check his "selection" and see if it is a fairly wholesome selection or a tendentious one. He would of course maintain that his "selection" is not guided by any narrow "ideology" but by something approximating to choiceless awareness.

When you get to the high level of generalization you want to apply, universal or near universal generalization, that is just much harder to check for all kinds of reasons. The level of generalization is so high that checking it might require not only acquisition of huge amounts of outward "data"; in addition, purely inward operations would have to be performed, on the level of thought, and inward evidence "collated," for testing purposes. When we are testing outward truths, the world can confirm or at least disconfirm them. But when we are testing non-quantitative inward truths of a certain degree of generalization, only an inward process can confirm them. How do we know that a given person's inward process is objective? To have the degree of certainty provided by the outer world in confirming outer truths, inner truths would have to confirmed by someone in some sense equivalent to the outer world, i.e., someone would have to have almost superhuman integrity, i.e., be like a god. While I do think human beings can potentially approach a divine state of integrity, it is exceedingly rare and difficult.

Posted by: traeh at May 30, 2006 9:08 PM

traeh

[You quoted me:] Robert's HYCAEIT seems to be that there is an "Islam" that is evil and dangerous, but that because it is only a central, crucial, gigantic chunk of a larger "Islam" that is ethically and culturally variegated, then he can't condemn "Islam"

[You responded:] A crucial part of the statement above is where you say the evil kind of Islam is "a central, crucial, gigantic chunk of..."Islam..." You say here not "the" central feature, rather, "a" central feature.

My use of the indefinite article "a" involved a subtle grammatical nuance beneath the distinction you see. The "a" in my sentence you quoted refers to Robert's use, not to my view of the subject to which the article points.

Beyond that, I think you are splitting hairs with your argument that is based on the idea that a center can have parts that are... well, not so central. If we begin by agreeing there is a center of something, then one of us, on the basis of subdividing that center, asserts that what the other person considered to be the center is really only a part of that center, then we should not be speaking of "center" anymore. I only use the word "center" when I am referring to an indivisible unit or a fasces ("bundle") of items where each item is necessary and not one of the items can be detached without destroying that center; all else pertaining to that unit or fasces is a collection of parts that orbit that center. Secondly, the whole point of the word "center" is that it is of central importance with relation to the unit under consideration. With Islam, we have a center that is a fasces, consisting of several items that are collectively and singly necessary for the center to remain as itself: the so-called "pillars" of Islam, and Jihad (and Jihad itself entails another "bundle" of indissoluble features -- Sharia, Eschatology, Supremacism-Subjugation, Military Conquest). Whether Islam can remain integral without Jihad is more than a theoretical ontological question: it is a pragmatic historical question whose answer, based on Muslim history and Muslim ideology & behavior past and present, leans with crushing preponderance toward "No". This reflects the problem with Muslim reformers and their apologists today: they are picking at the center of Islam and theorizing what pieces of its heart or brain can be destroyed without destroying Islam. It's like dissatisfied Catholics who want the Catholic Church to give up a list of such central tenets that it would no longer be the Catholic Church anymore; they should just join another Church or set up their own community or just become agnostics.

To abstain from condemning Islam is, in effect, to re-define the fasces that constitutes its center -- either by cherry-picking among the indissolubles therein (which can only be done theoretically, not actually) and minimizing one or more of the evil "parts" therein, or by enhancing the diluting effect of the bona fide parts (the parts that really are "parts", as opposed to members of the fasces of the center) that orbit that center. Robert's method seems to be the latter.

"[Robert] doesn't avow this dark Islam to be Islam's "very heart" -- all Robert does is argue that the dark Islam is some substantial part of Islam's very heart."

I'd have to see evidence of this from Robert's own words -- keeping in mind my argument above about how a "heart" or "center" has no "parts", per se.

"you will find it difficult, though not necessarily impossible, under current circumstances, to generate broad consensus around this distinction between periphery and center. You will find it easier if you use quantitative language: "75% of Muslims believe x, while only 25% of Muslims believe y"..."

I'm not denying this kind of apportionment pertains to Islam and Muslims. That's looking at the apples, not the oranges. To the identification, definition and condemnation of Islam's evil center, it doesn't matter what variety there is among Muslims concerning that evil center of Islam, nor does it matter what variety there is in Islam orbiting that evil center -- except insofar as all peripheral parts orbiting that evil center are to be condemned as long as they support or even passively countenance that evil center.

"as soon as you introduce terms of quite complex and often ambiguous meaning, like "center" and "periphery," you create problems for yourself in persuading people."

I think you are injecting complexity into my terminology. I repeatedly maintain that this is not rocket science: if an organization has a tenet that is

a) sufficiently evil
b) vital
c) central

then that organization should be condemned. (Indeed, that evil vital tenet would have to be not merely peripheral but way out on the periphery to exonerate the organization. I.e., even an organization that had a good center, but a peripheral part that was vital and evil, could be subject to condemnation, depending on the degree of peripherality. Thus, once we're in the ballpark of "center", all bets are off. No more negotiations with Tony Soprano's organization: he and his cronies murdered people in fidelity to its central fasces. His organization must be condemned.)

What complicates the evil of Islam is

1) its aura of historical venerability, its aesthetic cultural diversity, its socio-psychological diversity, and its bewildering jungle of "parts" that orbit its evil center;

coupled with

2) certain apodictic givens of the modern West's multiculturalism.

"why go to the trouble with "center" and "periphery" in the first place? Just start from the quantitative and specific."

The need for quantitative explication is mainly relevant to how we respond to an evil organization, not for proving to obtuse people who have been deformed by multiculturalism that it is evil in the first place. We have abundant data now to prove that the organization Islam is dangerous and evil, but most people persist in diluting that data in a complexity of "parts" that orbit the center. They will not reorient their minds until the data starts raining down from the skies on the heads of their families, friends, neighbors, cities, fellow countries.

"Pragmatically speaking, one can sometimes adopt the shorthand you wish to adopt about Islam, and in practice shorthand may often be necessary and sufficient ethically. But in terms of realities and truth, any formula or statement is at best an extremely accurate, not perfectly accurate, shorthand. Yes, this is true even of the Nazis. It is true of everything."

One can easily simultaneously condemn Islam, and recognize and try to use (or more appropriately, try to salvage) whatever good parts orbit its evil center.

"[Robert] would of course maintain that his "selection" is not guided by any narrow "ideology" but by something approximating to choiceless awareness."

Awareness of the evil manifested in each datum. That evil is not just the general, amorphous evil of the world, obviously, but pertains to an identifiable constellation which has a guiding center and which is dangerously metastasizing -- and Robert would agree; and yet, apparently, simultaneously disagree. Robert seems to be having his close-but-no-cigar and smoking it, too.

Posted by: Television at May 31, 2006 1:12 AM

Television said:

The "a" in my sentence you quoted refers to Robert's use, not to my view of the subject to which the article points.

Yes, I understood that was a reference to Robert's use.

Television said:

I only use the word "center" when I am referring to an indivisible unit or a fasces ("bundle") of items where each item is necessary and not one of the items can be detached without destroying that center; all else pertaining to that unit or fasces is a collection of parts that orbit that center. Secondly, the whole point of the word "center" is that it is of central importance with relation to the unit under consideration. With Islam, we have a center that is a fasces, consisting of several items that are collectively and singly necessary for the center to remain as itself: the so-called "pillars" of Islam, and Jihad (and Jihad itself entails another "bundle" of indissoluble features -- Sharia, Eschatology, Supremacism-Subjugation, Military Conquest). Whether Islam can remain integral without Jihad is more than a theoretical ontological question: it is a pragmatic historical question whose answer, based on Muslim history and Muslim ideology & behavior past and present, leans with crushing preponderance toward "No".

5 pillars: 1)praying five times a day; 2) pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in life, if possible; 3) shahada: affirming there is no God but God and Muhammed is His Prophet; 4)alms to the poor; 5) Ramadan fast. Jihad is by some scholars considered almost a sixth pillar. To these six should be added the supposed verbatim divinity of the Koran.

As far as I know, for orthodox Islam, the five pillars plus jihad are an indissoluble "bundle," because the Koran is taken as God's verbatim word valid for all time, and these six are laid down in the Koran (or are some of the six laid down in the Hadith?).

Are alms to the poor evil? Is a pilgrimage evil? Fasting? It seems to me the evil dimension of Islam is twofold: 1) violent jihad and plan for world domination and 2) the fact that the Koran's support for this violent totalitarianism is taken to be the verbatim, eternally unchangeable word of God. You seem to say that because these evil elements are indissoluble from the other, neutral or good central elements/pillars (like alms-giving), the evil elements corrupt the other central elements/pillars totally and make those other central elements purely evil. One of the problems with that approach is that it would seem to incapacitate the ability to distinguish degrees of evil or depths of evil. From your perspective, there would apparently be no difference if instead of alms-giving, Mohammed had substituted child-eating. Once something is evil, in your view, no more distinctions need be made on that score. You cannot measure degrees or depths (which circle of hell are we talking about) in part because you do not want to differentiate among the elements that make up the bundle, it's all evil, period, fini, because a center, you say, cannot have parts (though a bundle in some sense clearly does have parts, or else we couldn't distinguish a "bundle," and all we would 'see' is an infinitesimal point center). Instead of a "bundle" maybe this part of your argument requires terming the center to be a "unique structure," comparable to a work of art, or a personality, where if you change one thing you change the whole, and in effect destroy it or, what is similar, totally transform it. But that doesn't entirely solve the problem with your position. In a painted work of art the colors indeed form a unique whole in which all the colors are essential and you cannot remove any one color without utterly changing the work of art. Even though that is true, yet there are different colors in that work of art, and they can be distinguished. In saying that the evil "colors" make all the other colors equally evil in the center, you would seem to cripple the ability to distinguish what are clearly distinct elements with semi-independent moral qualities: the 6 pillars and the Koran's alleged divinity. I would say that in the unified and indissoluble composition, the evil colors do affect the other neutral or "good" colors, but those "good" colors do remain at least somewhat distinct from the "evil" colors, and what's more affect the evil colors.

If you said that anyone is evil (or foolish, or afraid) who refuses to condemn violent jihad and the goal of world domination, I would agree.

Television said:

if an organization has a tenet that is a) sufficiently evil; b) vital; c) central; then that organization should be condemned.

I agree. But part of the difficulty here is that Islam is not a single "organization" and furthermore, some significant part of what you call "evil" in Islam is, strictly speaking, not so much "evil" as foolish, ignorant, backward, even insane. Your approach seems to completely neglect that fact.

Television said:

What complicates the evil of Islam is 1) its aura of historical venerability, its aesthetic cultural diversity, its socio-psychological diversity, and its bewildering jungle of "parts" that orbit its evil center; coupled with 2) certain apodictic givens of the modern West's multiculturalism.

I would only add that there is some moral diversity as well.

Television said:

To the identification, definition and condemnation of Islam's evil center, it doesn't matter what variety there is among Muslims concerning that evil center of Islam

It matters in terms of avoiding unnecessary misunderstandings with tens or hundreds of millions of Muslims, at any rate, and numerous non-Muslims. Consider: tens or hundreds of millions of "Muslims" do not know that Islam advocates totalitarian takeover of the world and violent jihad; most Muslims know the Koran only through reciting ancient Arabic, and don't know what the ancient Arabic being recited means. To these Muslims, Islam means little more than prayer, and social and familial solidarity of a sort we would recognize as often backwardly traditional and of dubious morality, but hardly pure evil. You will say that is not the true Islam, which includes totalitarian jihad toward world domination. Fine. But though Islam without those malignant evil elements is not the "true" Islam of Muslim scholars, it is what tens or hundreds of millions of Muslims mean by the word "Islam." Little more than a kind of religious solidarity, often of a backward sort. When you call Islam "evil" these Muslims believe you are calling evil the "Islam" they experience directly, which is mainly a question of their immediate social relationships and lifeways, and in many cases contains no notion of totalitarian world domination or murdering infidels. At a minimum, then, your approach would seem to create the possibility of huge misunderstandings between this type of Muslim, of whom there is a large number, and yourself.

Television said:

One can easily simultaneously condemn Islam, and recognize and try to use (or more appropriately, try to salvage) whatever good parts orbit its evil center.

To my mind, this would mean designating "alms-giving to the poor," which is one of the five pillars, as "orbital" or "peripheral" to the evil center. Because to my mind alms giving is not evil. Yet you have said that the five pillars plus jihad are all central, so that to you, alms-giving must be deemed central, and therefore it must be evil. You say it is made evil by association with other evil elements at the center such as jihad. To me that is only a partial truth, one which recognizes the unity at the center but exaggerates that unity to the point where you cripple the ability to distinguish different elements making up the center, elements with semi-independent moral qualities like the semi-independent qualities of different colors forming the unified composition of a painting. And anyway, if all the central elements are equally evil, why is it that some central elements do the corrupting while other central elements get corrupted, as you have pointed out? Doesn't that suggest the very differentiation you say is not there in the center or is not meaningful?

Television said:

Robert seems to be having his close-but-no-cigar and smoking it, too.

If you are correct in that last statement, then the cause would be either unintentional error on Robert's part, or conscious tactic and perhaps humanistic caution (to protect innocent Muslims).

If you are wrong in your last statement, then the cause would be that Islam and evil are both a bit more complicated than you allow.

As we have discussed this issue, it has to me seemed to grow more complicated, at least in terms of what would constitute effective rhetoric.

Posted by: traeh at May 31, 2006 4:43 AM

traeh

"As far as I know, for orthodox Islam, the five pillars plus jihad are an indissoluble "bundle," because the Koran is taken as God's verbatim word valid for all time, and these six are laid down in the Koran (or are some of the six laid down in the Hadith?)."

Instead of acceding to the Islamic terminology of "pillars", I would rather simply identify what belongs in the fasces of its center: you have identified a further one I neglected to mention: divine inerrancy.

"Are alms to the poor evil? Is a pilgrimage evil? Fasting?"

I'm surprised and dismayed that you would ask these questions at this late stage of the game. As I have repeatedly said, when a system has an evil center, it doesn't matter if there are good adjuncts -- whether those good adjuncts are parts orbiting the center, or whether those good adjuncts are members of the fasces that constitutes the center. Yes, they are good in and of themselves -- but they are not "in and of themselves" when they are within the evil system. At best, they are passive enablers of the evil of that evil system. (As far as pilgrimage and fasting goes, however, I would say that, insofar as they are caught up in the gravitational pull of the galactic system of Islam, they go beyond merely passively enabling, to a further degree of collusion, of symbiotically nourishing the evil, in inculcating a psychological regimentation unto the totalitarianism that helps to make the evil of Islam so dangerous to others and so mentally crippling for its adherents. Even almsgiving can have this function, in inculcating a super-gang mentality similar to street gangs and the Mafia that "helps its own" in oftentimes quite tender and gracious ways -- but considering the evil to which such "helping" is intrinsically tied, then such "helping" should be nauseating to any person of good conscience.)

"You seem to say that because these evil elements are indissoluble from the other, neutral or good central elements/pillars (like alms-giving), the evil elements corrupt the other central elements/pillars totally and make those other central elements purely evil."

No. The central evil does pollute and blemish the apparently good things, insofar as the good things are bound up in supporting the evil center. Tony Soprano in cold blood murders the husband of some woman; then he buys that woman a brand new car and gives ice cream to her children and pets her dog, and pays her mortgage off which helps relieve the stress and financial burdens on her family. You can't isolate the buying a brand new car, giving ice cream, petting the dog, and financial charity from the cold-blooded murder -- they are part of the sincere yet clever & diabolical system that Tony Soprano has woven in order to have the power he enjoys and continue being evil along with enjoying his innocuous life of cigars, family life, and occasional hookers.

"One of the problems with that approach is that it would seem to incapacitate the ability to distinguish degrees of evil or depths of evil."

As I have said repeatedly, I acknowledge not only degrees of evil, but also co-existing good and innocuous parts present in an evil system. But if there is evil in a system and when that evil is

1) sufficiently evil (of a degree of evil sufficient to pass the litmus test of rendering the system condemnable)
2) central (or even, as I realized in my previous post, peripheral in an important way -- another recognition of degrees, btw)
3) vital

Then the system must be condemned, and all innocuous activities and good activities that are sustained by that system would have to be disbanded and close up shop (while the authorities deconstruct that system), and relocate to a place outside that system to continue -- for, while they continue within the evil system of Islam, they serve -- in addition to any good they might accomplish -- to perpetuate the evil of the system.

"But part of the difficulty here is that Islam is not a single "organization"..."

It is, in terms of the fasces. All the features that make it seem not to be a single organization are just accidents of the exigencies of having a vast, sprawling ideology permeating several different regions and cultures, that has lasted many centuries. Within its fasces-center, Islam has the impulse to unify in totalitarian fashion: this impulse is not attenuated by design or good will, but by the sheer difficulty of doing so, when a nuclear culture (beginning with the nucleus of Mohammed's Ikhwan and expanding relentlessly and metastatically over time) has to absorb and digest so much humanity in its ambition to conquer the World in preparation for a psychotically conceived and desired eschaton.

"and furthermore, some significant part of what you call "evil" in Islam is, strictly speaking, not so much "evil" as foolish, ignorant, backward, even insane. Your approach seems to completely neglect that fact."

Just more peripheral paraphernalia attached, like the rag-tag families and beasts of burden and pets and birds and cooks and servants and slaves and musicians and dancers dragged in the train of a conquering migratory Mongolian or Ottoman army. There is a system here, an organism, and all systems and organisms have a center. Part of the conceit of Muslim apologists is that Islam is so wonderfully big and diverse, it is like an "ocean", it is like "life itself" -- this lets it off the hook of having a guiding center to which ethical responsibility can be imputed, leading inexorably to condemnation. It is like an "ocean" and like "life itself" by express design of its central imperative to conquer the entire World -- and that central design, by itself, and by the evil rules it would impose upon people, is evil.

"Consider: tens or hundreds of millions of "Muslims" do not know that Islam advocates totalitarian takeover of the world and violent jihad; most Muslims know the Koran only through reciting ancient Arabic, and don't know what the ancient Arabic being recited means. To these Muslims, Islam means little more than prayer, and social and familial solidarity of a sort we would recognize as often backwardly traditional and of dubious morality, but hardly pure evil. You will say that is not the true Islam, which includes totalitarian jihad toward world domination."

That vast rag-tag diversity and amiable ignorance & naivete you describe that pertains to Islam is part of the totalitarian jihad -- attenuated by the sheer difficulty of maintaining vast populations, but also a diverse mass that felicitously aids the triumphalism of Islam through sheer numbers and presence.

"Islam without those malignant evil elements is not the "true" Islam of Muslim scholars, [but] it is what tens or hundreds of millions of Muslims mean by the word "Islam." "

Tough beans. By remaining Muslims, they are contributing to the evil system's triumphalism. They need to get out. We may pity them and grieve their passive quasi-slavery to an evil system, but me ought not justify it in any way.

"your approach would seem to create the possibility of huge misunderstandings between this type of Muslim, of whom there is a large number, and yourself."

There already is a chasm of misunderstanding: the mere fact that they don't realize they are passively enabling a monumentally evil and metastatically dangerous horror represents a chasm, which is not going to be bridged by my acceptance of or even respect on any level for their choice to remain affiliated with such an evil system. The only proper response is one you would have if you encountered a Charles Manson Family member who cooked and cleaned and drove getaway cars for Charlie and his more knowing inner circle of murderers, but who otherwise had accidentally (or by Charlie's clever design) remained ignorant of the twisted and sordid activities of the Family: Pity and grief and horror if you could do nothing for them: or, if you could: Get the Hell outta there, now!!!! And let's call the police!!!!! And here's a loaded gun!!!!!!! Shoot Charlie or his murderous fanatics on sight!!!!!!!!!!! Come on, let's go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Television said:

One can easily simultaneously condemn Islam, and recognize and try to use (or more appropriately, try to salvage) whatever good parts orbit its evil center.

To my mind, this would mean designating "alms-giving to the poor," which is one of the five pillars, as "orbital" or "peripheral" to the evil center. Because to my mind alms giving is not evil."

Alms-giving, whether as an orbital part of the evil system or as a feature of the central fasces, supports that evil system. You don't let Tony Soprano continue giving the local shopkeepers and their families (who don't cross him but behave in ways that help keep his system thriving) kind favors, and continue giving financial help to widows of the men he's murdered, etc. If there's any good in a system -- whether orbiting as "parts" or within the nuclear fasces -- it will have to go down with the evil system whenever that evil system can be taken down: if possible, it would be nice to disengage and salvage the good aspects, and relocate them to new systems that are not evil -- either before that evil system is taken down, or after. But if the good cannot be disengaged and salvaged, then it is tied to the evil system. (Don't get confused here: when I say the good must be "taken down", the analogy would not be that the innocent widow who knows nothing of Tony Soprano's evil must herself be "taken down" when Tony is arrested or killed: it means that the good of Tony's almsgiving dissolves with the deconstruction of Tony's criminal organization -- and if the police or some concerned third party can scrape together some money to help that widow once her main benefactor, evil Tony, is gone, that would be nice, but we should not lament the loss of Tony's benefaction in its nature as it is necessarily tied to his evil acts after it's gone nor should we support it or justify it while that benefaction is being maintained by a thriving, successful, murdering Tony.)

"Yet you have said that the five pillars plus jihad are all central, so that to you, alms-giving must be deemed central, and therefore it must be evil."

I hope you can find an answer above to this misunderstanding of yours. To repeat yet again: an evil center that is a fasces (and not a simplex unit of one thing) may have 10 features: a full 9 of them could be good, but if only one is sufficiently evil, then not the other 9 by themselves, but the center itself, and the system of which it is the center, is evil. The only real way to render the good 9 "by themselves" is to rescue them from the evil center and the system that evil center guides -- detach them from the evil center and relocate them apart from the evil center. While this would be relatively easy with the good in Tony Soprano's relatively small and localized system, it would be with Islam a gargantuan and laborious and overwhelming task, since Islam is more like a complex ecosystem in which evil is intricately and intrinsically and inextricably interwoven.

The most pragmatic way to do it (and even this would be colossally difficult) would be to destroy Islam, then invite the surviving millions of Muslims to continue doing good if they like, divorced from the worldview with which they used to associate everything under the Sun. The world, after all, has plenty of ways utterly unrelated to Islam by which a good person can do any number of good activities, and plenty of benign, mature, sane flavors of religion to frame those good activities, if the ex-Muslim would feel the need to do so.

Posted by: Television at May 31, 2006 1:27 PM

traeh said:

"Are alms to the poor evil? Is a pilgrimage evil? Fasting?"

Television replied:

Well, but the only reason I go into this question yet again is that as far as I can tell you have never directly replied to the two objections I raised, namely:

1. By your reasoning, it would seem to make no difference of any kind to our moral evaluation (I'm not speaking of what pragmatic action to take) if Mohammed had, instead of alms-giving for a pillar, put in child-eating. It would make no difference, because to you, whatever M. introduced, however “good in and of itself,” is not “in and of itself” when within the evil system. So child-eating and alms-giving become all the same. In this respect you do not, as far as I can see, account for degrees of evil. You seem to want to claim that it matters not a bit to the character of the center, precisely what the “good” elements are, how many there are, etc.

2. You say that the elements of the center or the orbit, however good in and of themselves, become nothing but evil, or nothing but evil in effect, when in the evil system. I have replied to this a couple of times, but as far as I can tell you have not directly responded to my reply which was: yes, good things, especially within a predominantly evil system, can and frequently do subserve and perpetuate the evil. I do not deny and have never denied this. But the good things within the evil system do not always or only serve the evil in that system. In fact, you yourself seem to agree with this in your most recent response, when you say:

for, while [the good or innocuous elements] continue within the evil system of Islam, they serve -- in addition to any good they might accomplish -- to perpetuate the evil of the system.

(I added the italics.) “in addition to any good they might accomplish,” you say. Without reservation I agree with the above statement. You point out that the “good” becomes evil in serving the perpetuation of the system’s dominant evil, but you also allow that in addition the good “might accomplish” some good (even though the good accomplished would not be sufficiently large to redeem the system’s net effect, and that net effect demands condemnation).

This seems different to what you were saying before, and to what you have been saying in earlier replies, where you seem to make the “good” exclusively active for the dominant evil. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier replies on this. In any event, if you agree that the “good” within the evil system subserves and furthers that evil system, but in addition the good might also sometimes accomplish some good effects (however insignificant those effects might be), then this part of our discussion – really the main part -- is now resolved in agreement between us.
Television said:

The central evil does pollute and blemish the apparently good things, insofar as the good things are bound up in supporting the evil center. Tony Soprano in cold blood murders the husband of some woman; then he buys that woman a brand new car and gives ice cream to her children and pets her dog, and pays her mortgage off which helps relieve the stress and financial burdens on her family. You can't isolate the buying a brand new car, giving ice cream, petting the dog, and financial charity from the cold-blooded murder -- they are part of the sincere yet clever & diabolical system that Tony Soprano has woven in order to have the power he enjoys and continue being evil along with enjoying his innocuous life of cigars, family life, and occasional hookers.

This goes back to the discussion that I said had now been resolved in agreement between us, though this analogy of yours suggests that maybe I was mistaken about what you think. Here you seem to assume that all “good” things in Islam are there only to enable the dominant evil, and have exclusively the effect of enabling evil. Even if that is true in the Tony Soprano case you have illustrated (and I’m not sure it is), it seems doubtful that it is true in every case one might adduce in Islam. Anyway, you yourself seem to agree with my position on this when you said:

for, while [the good or innocuous elements] continue within the evil system of Islam, they serve -- in addition to any good they might accomplish -- to perpetuate the evil of the system.

Television said:

I acknowledge not only degrees of evil, but also co-existing good and innocuous parts present in an evil system. But if there is evil in a system and when that evil is

1) sufficiently evil (of a degree of evil sufficient to pass the litmus test of rendering the system condemnable)

2) central (or even, as I realized in my previous post, peripheral in an important way -- another recognition of degrees, btw)

3) vital

This seems reasonable, so I don’t disagree with this. Here, by “condemned” you indicate an action that must be taken. I agree, because to me the net effect of the system justifies shutting down the system as a whole (if possible). My only complaint, which you seem to have removed above by now seeming to agree with me, is that formerly you did not acknowledge any “net” effect, any need to add and subtract goods and evils to get a total. You formerly wanted, so it seemed, to simply declare the system evil not only in whole, but in every part in every way at every moment. To me, this seemed to kill the possibility of discriminating details, not to mention the possibility of recognizing degrees of evil, circles of hell. But since you now seem to agree (perhaps you always did) that one can do an accounting and come up with an estimated “net” result, then I suspect we are in complete agreement.
Television said:

Part of the conceit of Muslim apologists is that Islam is so wonderfully big and diverse, it is like an "ocean", it is like "life itself" -- this lets it off the hook of having a guiding center to which ethical responsibility can be imputed, leading inexorably to condemnation.

I agree with this. But it doesn’t eliminate the need for a “net” accounting of moral deficits and credits. To which you seem to have agreed. Condemnation then becomes a practical result of calculating a net moral negative. Agreeing to calculate “net” does not mean one must say that something is only mildly evil. A “net” result can be that something is hugely and horribly, a very close approximation to pure evil. The only thing a “net” calculation rules out is to call something perfectly evil. Condemnation, in terms of “net” calculations, acknowledges, just as you do, that the evil system is a unity of its good and evil “parts,” the “good” often acting to further evil. But condemnation should acknowledge, as you seem to have done, and I have been asking you to do, that while the “good” subserves and perpetuates the dominant evil in an evil system, yet the “good” does not only or exclusively serve the evil in that system. Condemnation of the system is therefore based on the fact that the system has an evil center. But condemnation also peers into the specific character and degree of evil of that evil center, and acknowledges that some “minority good elements” in that center not only serve the mainly evil quality of the center and strengthen its evil – those good elements also “might accomplish,” as you put it, some good (without being a sufficient good to transform the evil center into a good one).
Television said:

By remaining Muslims, they are contributing to the evil system's triumphalism. They need to get out. We may pity them and grieve their passive quasi-slavery to an evil system, but me ought not justify it in any way.

I would agree with that. My point has been that your former(?) way of putting things would not aid them in understanding that they need to get out. Sure, condemn Islam, say it must be shut down, say it is a net force for terrible evil. Just don’t expect Muslims to pretend that in their totally Muslim lives they experience nothing at all truly good. (Which is the conclusion one might draw you’re your former(?) stance.) They will just think you blind, as will many non-Muslims, and won’t listen to the valid idea that Islam as a belief system and practice needs to somehow very actively opposed and contained or even banned.
Television said:

I do not and have never said you should accept or respect their choice to stay affiliated. I have only been saying, throughout our long and, to me, very interesting, dialog, that you should acknowledge a “net” moral result, and drop the idea of some absolutely undifferentiated conclusion. You seem to have dropped it that absolute undifferentiation. But if you maintain it, you should do so for practical or strategic or rhetorical reasons only, or as shorthand, but not for reasons of truth. In terms of truth, Islam’s moral character must be determined by the result of an accounting of specifics, leading to a net result which, however extremely and horribly evil it might be, is not perfectly pure evil.
Television said:

The only proper response is one you would have if you encountered a Charles Manson Family member who cooked and cleaned and drove getaway cars for Charlie and his more knowing inner circle of murderers, but who otherwise had accidentally (or by Charlie's clever design) remained ignorant of the twisted and sordid activities of the Family: Pity and grief and horror if you could do nothing for them: or, if you could: Get the Hell outta there, now!!!! And let's call the police!!!!! And here's a loaded gun!!!!!!! Shoot Charlie or his murderous fanatics on sight!!!!!!!!!!! Come on, let's go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, I completely agree, because this is a practical condemnation you are speaking of. Does that mean Charlie Manson’s belief system and actions were perfectly evil and without the most miniscule iota of good? I don’t believe anything in the world is absolutely and perfectly pure. That is a point I have made before that you never seemed to respond to: No statement about a reality can be perfectly precise. Every statement is an approximation, sometimes an extremely good one. The sum and substance of my whole debate with you might be summed up in my sense that, formerly, your position failed to acknowledge the approximate nature of knowledge, which can be very very precise, practically without limit, but never attain perfect precision. Understandably, you tended to equate any such admission of the imperfection of rational statement, with the inability to take practical action to shut an evil system down. If we can’t call a thing pure and absolute evil, but only something approximating to pure evil, you fear we can’t shut the thing down, and will be tempted to try instead to reform it. Well, if you want to get around that, go ahead and speak of Islam as pure evil in whole and in every part and in every way. Just recognize that in doing so you are doing so for pragmatic reasons, because you believe that shutting Islam down will be easier for people if they have a simplified view of things. Don’t confuse those practical reasons with the reality of Islam. The reality is that Islam, like any other “evil” system, can only be some kind of approximation, perhaps a very good one, to perfect evil, but cannot be perfectly evil. Different evil systems will approximate more or less closely to some perfect evil “ideal.” It seems to me you must agree with this, or else you must withdraw your earlier statement that the “good” parts of Islam not only serve to perpetuate its dominant evil; they also “might accomplish” some good (however small).
Television said:

If there's any good in a system -- whether orbiting as "parts" or within the nuclear fasces -- it will have to go down with the evil system whenever that evil system can be taken down: if possible, it would be nice to disengage and salvage the good aspects, and relocate them to new systems that are not evil -- either before that evil system is taken down, or after. But if the good cannot be disengaged and salvaged, then it is tied to the evil system.

I agree with this.
Television said:

(Don't get confused here: when I say the good must be "taken down", the analogy would not be that the innocent widow who knows nothing of Tony Soprano's evil must herself be "taken down" when Tony is arrested or killed: it means that the good of Tony's almsgiving dissolves with the deconstruction of Tony's criminal organization -- and if the police or some concerned third party can scrape together some money to help that widow once her main benefactor, evil Tony, is gone, that would be nice, but we should not lament the loss of Tony's benefaction in its nature as it is necessarily tied to his evil acts after it's gone nor should we support it or justify it while that benefaction is being maintained by a thriving, successful, murdering Tony.)

I agree with this.
Television said:

In this statement about the 10 items, it seems to me you partly disagree with the following statement of yours made earlier:

for, while [the good or innocuous elements] continue within the evil system of Islam, they serve -- in addition to any good they might accomplish -- to perpetuate the evil of the system.

I prefer this latter statement of yours. It disagrees with the statement that the 9 items, while linked to the 10th evil one, are exclusively evil in effect. As I have said, I agree that the “good” elements often act for evil, subserve it and help perpetuate a dominant evil system. But I agree with you when you leave open the possibility that the “good” elements within a dominant system do not always or only act for evil.
Television said:

While [detaching the “good” elements from the evil system] would be relatively easy with the good in Tony Soprano's relatively small and localized system, it would be with Islam a gargantuan and laborious and overwhelming task, since Islam is more like a complex ecosystem in which evil is intricately and intrinsically and inextricably interwoven.

Again, you make a practical point that seems to me quite reasonable. My argument with you has never really been about what pragmatic course to take. It has been about how most accurately to characterize what is.
Posted by: traeh at May 31, 2006 5:03 PM

traeh (words in CAPS are supposed to be italicized):

“as far as I can tell you have never directly replied to the two objections I raised, namely:

It makes a difference to the difference between almsgiving by itself, and child-eating in any context. It makes no difference to the system in which almsgiving is found, if that system is evil, and it is evil if it has at least one central (or major peripheral), vital and sufficiently evil tenet. You keep focusing on the part (or the fasces-member), while I am only talking about the system to which the part or fasces-member belong.

“You seem to want to claim that it matters not a bit to the character of the center, precisely what the “good” elements are, how many there are, etc.”

That’s correct. The center, if it’s a fasces and not a simplex unit of one thing (since one thing obviously can’t be simultaneously evil and good – though I wouldn’t be surprised if you would argue that child-eating (if child-eating were the totality of some system's center) had a “degree” of good if the child-eater treated the child nicely before the eating) may have degrees of good or evil if the evil, or evils, that form its totality are not SUFFICIENTLY evil. If at least one of the members of the fasces is SUFFICIENTLY evil, and that evil is vital (i.e., not obsolete without any threat of being "reactivated"), then that center, and the system of which it is a center, is morally ruined and condemnable.

“2. You say that the elements of the center or the orbit, however good in and of themselves, become nothing but evil”

No, they don’t “become” evil, let alone “anything but” evil. I am not focusing on the elements or parts, I am focusing on the system (and/or the center) OF WHICH they are elements or parts. They can be as good as possible, but their goodness will not be able to exonerate the evil of the center, and therefore of the system of which the center is central, if that center has that evil which is SUFFICIENTLY evil as well as vital.

“You point out that the “good” becomes evil in serving the perpetuation of the system’s dominant evil”

It doesn’t have to. Any evil system could have many good features that never “become” evil. That’s irrelevant to the question of whether the system of which they are a part is condemnable or not. If that system is condemnable – and it is if it has at least one evil that is sufficiently evil, vital and central (or not too peripheral) – then no amount of good things and no amount of goodness of those good things will be able to exonerate that evil system. Sometimes, however, good parts can collude with the evil. Note: all good parts or fasces-members do collude with the evil system of which they are parts or members in one sense: their sheer presence helps to maintain the system – unless, of course, their goodness is a form of sabotage working to destroy that system.

“Here you seem to assume that all “good” things in Islam are there only to enable the dominant evil”

It does seem, with the concrete case of Islam, that its good things are serving to enable the evil system; nevertheless, if one could make a case for one or more good things that are not enabling the evil system, that would be irrelevant to the condemnation of the evil system of which they are parts or members.

“You formerly wanted, so it seemed, to simply declare the system evil not only in whole, but in every part in every way at every moment.”

I don’t think so. I think you concluded that because you were confusing the two levels of System and Parts. I have always been focusing on the System, and it can be condemned as evil if at least one part or member is sufficiently, centrally (or not too peripherally) and vitally evil – and no amount and/or degree of goodness also present in that System will have the effect of exonerating that System. It seemed to me in our exchanges you kept bouncing back and forth from System to Parts, thinking that if one condemns the System, one must also condemn one of its good Parts.

“To me, this seemed to kill the possibility of discriminating details”

Discriminating details are dead insofar as the System is found to be condemnable. I don’t give a shit if Islam also bakes cookies for the elderly or if Mishka’s relatives are nice people. Islam must be shut down, regardless of any good things it might be doing, no matter how good they are, and no matter how pure their connections are in relation to the central evil of Islam.

“But since you now seem to agree (perhaps you always did) that one can do an accounting and come up with an estimated “net” result”

Again, the only “net” that counts is determined by the presence of at least one evil that is 1) sufficient, 2) central (or not too peripheral), and vital. After that accounting is done (and it does take some accounting to determine the existence of a systemic evil that fits all three), there is no further thought: immediate condemnation is next, and destruction of that system if possible. The evidence in the system Islam for not only at least one evil, but of numerous evils that pass this litmus test is already abundant and clear. It has been abundant and clear for centuries.

“Condemnation, in terms of “net” calculations, acknowledges, just as you do, that the evil system is a unity of its good and evil “parts,” the “good” often acting to further evil.”

The co-existence of good parts is irrelevant, if there is present at least one evil that passes the 3-point litmus test. The only function of a calculus for determining whether a system is to be condemned and shut down is the presence of at least one evil that passes the 3-point litmus test. Co-existing goods are irrelevant to this calculus.

“condemnation also peers into the specific character and degree of evil of that evil center, and acknowledges that some “minority good elements” in that center not only serve the mainly evil quality of the center and strengthen its evil – those good elements also “might accomplish,” as you put it, some good (without being a sufficient good to transform the evil center into a good one).”

See above about baking cookies for the elderly and my not giving a shit.

“My point has been that your former(?) way of putting things would not aid them in understanding that they need to get out.”

I’m not interested in doing that – not only because it’s a nearly impossible task, but also because I positively resent the imposition of yet again one more Burden for the White Man (i.e., the West), to save benighted non-Western cultures from their own muck and mire. Enough of that already. They should resent it too, for it treats them like children or cute, pitiful animals to be saved, as though they are not mature humans responsible for their own choices, lives and social systems of living.

“Sure, condemn Islam, say it must be shut down, say it is a net force for terrible evil. Just don’t expect Muslims to pretend that in their totally Muslim lives they experience nothing at all truly good.”

They don’t need to pretend that – all they need to do is juxtapose with that experience the realization that the World they belong to is a hopelessly evil, chaotic, corrupt, and regressive prison – a prison so vast and sprawling (vast and sprawling because of the central imperative to conquer the World) that by sheer exigency and accident it allows for plenty of “bubbles” of good experiences.

“terms of truth, Islam’s moral character must be determined by the result of an accounting of specifics, leading to a net result which, however extremely and horribly evil it might be, is not perfectly pure evil.”

A system does not have to be 100% pure evil to be condemnable – it only need have present at least one evil that passes my 3-point litmus test.

“Once again, I completely agree, because this is a practical condemnation you are speaking of. Does that mean Charlie Manson’s belief system and actions were perfectly evil and without the most miniscule iota of good?”

Again, for the thousandth time, Manson could have performed a million good acts along with his evil acts, but they would be irrelevant to the condemnation of the Manson Family as a system, and to Charles Manson himself as a “system”, if it (and/or he) had an evil center as determined by all the methodology I’ve laid out.

“I don’t believe anything in the world is absolutely and perfectly pure. That is a point I have made before that you never seemed to respond to”

I hope my response above settles this: condemnation doesn’t require perfect or pure evil.

[Quoting me:] I hope you can find an answer above to this misunderstanding of yours. To repeat yet again: an evil center that is a fasces (and not a simplex unit of one thing) may have 10 features: a full 9 of them could be good, but if only one is sufficiently evil, then not the other 9 by themselves, but the center itself, and the system of which it is the center, is evil. The only real way to render the good 9 "by themselves" is to rescue them from the evil center and the system that evil center guides -- detach them from the evil center and relocate them apart from the evil center.

[You:] “In this statement about the 10 items, it seems to me you partly disagree with the following statement of yours made earlier:”

[Quoting me:] for, while [the good or innocuous elements] continue within the evil system of Islam, they serve -- in addition to any good they might accomplish -- to perpetuate the evil of the system.

[You:] “I prefer this latter statement of yours. It disagrees with the statement that the 9 items, while linked to the 10th evil one, are exclusively evil in effect.”

I don’t think my 9-10 statement makes the 9 good things evil. My 9-10 statement explicitly says that they are good. I will clarify further: the 9 good things REMAIN GOOD. It doesn’t matter whether good parts become evil by association with the evil system of which they are parts, or whether they become by degree tainted, or whether they always remain good. I am not condemning parts. I am condemning the system of which parts are parts. And no amount or degree of good parts can exonerate an evil system if it has at least one evil that passes the 3-point litmus test. With the concrete case of Islam, I conclude that most of its goods serve to enable the evilness of the system in one way or another; but again, that’s irrelevant to the condemnation of the system qua system – Islam.

Posted by: Television at June 1, 2006 12:42 AM

traeh,

A slight correction to my last post:

"The center... may have degrees of good or evil if the evil, or evils, that form its totality are not SUFFICIENTLY evil."

Of course, the evil that is determined to be SUFFICIENTLY evil by the process of the 3-point litmus test is also a degree of evil -- that would be obviously implied by the term SUFFICIENTLY: it is an evil that reaches a certain threshhold of degree. I probably meant, by my quoted statement above, that once an evil has been determined to be SUFFICIENTLY evil, no further calculus of degrees is necessary or relevant.

Posted by: Television at June 1, 2006 2:16 PM

Television said:

I hope my response above settles this: condemnation doesn’t require perfect or pure evil.

Well, but that's what I myself think and have said or tried to say in my last post, and I think I said in the post before that. So we officially agree about this: condemnation doesn't require perfect or pure evil. My last post was absurdly long, and perhaps insufficiently clear, so I can't blame you for not seeing this.

Television said:

A slight correction to my last post:

"The center... may have degrees of good or evil if the evil, or evils, that form its totality are not SUFFICIENTLY evil."

No further calculus of degrees is necessary or relevant for condemnation, taken as practical action. But further calculus of degrees is relevant for knowledge. Such knowledge might not be interesting for this or that person, but insofar as degrees exist -- and you have just acknowledged that they do -- that is relevant for knowledge. This, I think, has been what I have been trying all along to convey, because it seemed to me that some things you were saying ran counter to the fact that degrees of evil are relevant to knowledge, are a part of reality. The unique character of the evil system, the specific way its "good" elements subserve yet sometimes also limit the evil factors, and how they do so concretely, is all relevant to knowledge, because all real.

Posted by: traeh at June 1, 2006 11:25 PM

traeh,

"we officially agree about this: condemnation doesn't require perfect or pure evil."

If you agree that condemnation doesn't require perfect or pure evil, then why won't you condemn Islam?

Posted by: Television at June 3, 2006 12:01 AM

Thank you for asking excellent questions. And now, though we may seem merely to have circled back to the beginning of our debate, I think we are in fact at a higher turn of the spiral.

I do condemn Islam. The only difference between my condemnation and yours (I'm not sure this difference actually exists anymore) seems to be that my condemnation acknowledges that within the evil system of Islam, there are "good" elements that not only further evil and perpetuate the evil system, but also sometimes restrain the evil of the system. It seems to me what you have recently said agrees with this. The difference between us now may be mostly rhetorical, i.e., to do with how best to persuade others.

I believe that condemnation is most effectively achieved if tied to description of the specific character of the evil system, including the specific character of the "good" elements that both perpetuate that evil and sometimes restrain it and act for good.

TO BE FAIR TO YOU, it's true that I have been trying to defend Robert's refusal to condemn Islam. Robert has chosen to condemn the Jihad dimension of Islam. He chooses not to treat the the good or neutral elements in Islam as mere perpetuators of the evil system. It seems to me that you and I would now agree with Robert that the "good" elements are not merely perpetuators of the evil system, but also sometimes restrain that evil and act for good.

The difference between you and Robert now seems to be a matter of emphasis: You wish to emphasize the unity of the system and the way in which "good" elements in the system often merely act for evil and serve to perpetuate the evil system. Without denying that side of the coin, Robert wishes to emphasize the other side, which is also real, namely the fact that the good elements sometimes act for good in the evil system and restrain that evil. In terms of knowledge, both emphases possess truth. So the difference I see between you and Robert at this point is not so much in the realm of truth as in the realm of practice. You think Islam must be condemned as a whole, and that the unity of the system, including the way "good" acts for evil and perpetuates evil in the system, is what counts most. Robert prefers to condemn the more specifically evil element, Jihad, and to give the "good" and neutral elements a pass, except in the specific cases where he can show that they are subserving the evil of the system. From what you have been saying, I would think you would acknowledge that Robert's approach also has validity, because "good" in Islam is, as it were, a coin with two sides, one side that restrains evil and acts for good, the other side that serves evil and acts for evil. The side that is effective will depend on circumstances and the angle of observation.

I think there is room for both your approach and Robert's, and I'm not sure how one would determine which is the superior one, if either. It may depend on situation and temperament. If one does use your approach, condemning Islam, not just Jihad, one need not deny the fact that the "good" elements of the system sometimes do not act for evil but restrain it. You seem to have acknowledged this.

You believe that Robert's refusal to condemn Islam, though that refusal has the partial basis in fact I have described, is more misleading to the world than your approach, which also has a partial basis in fact. But maybe your approach has a less partial, and more complete basis than Robert's. That question we haven't discussed. Robert's approach might be more misleading than yours, insofar as multiculturalism and PC are so pervasive today and so help Islam that perhaps we need more from Robert than a condemnation of Jihad and elements that abet Jihad. But Robert's approach also has much to recommend it and has advantages that your approach lacks.

Posted by: traeh at June 3, 2006 11:57 AM

Resource for The Hesperado

Saturday, May 03, 2008

Transcript of "Television" and "traeh" on the evil of Islam

0 Comments: