Wednesday, June 22, 2016

The solution to Islam

It's a pretentious title, but I think apt.

First we need to define the problem. The Quran is an algorithm (originally a Persian term) for conquering the world. It will succeed, if it is not understood and fought properly. It's not going to happen today or tomorrow, but it's end state is a Muslim world that does not tolerate anything outside of Islam.

Looking at its history we can clearly see it taking over countries. Occasionally some countries seem to have effectively fought back, but that's an illusion. As it gains power in a country, first by demanding minority rights and later by imposing majority rule, it becomes less and less tolerant of rivals until you have a Muslim country. Many examples, all of which began as non-Muslim countries, existing today.

Terrorism is barbaric but focusing on that is not the solution to Islam. We could easily defeat Islam militarily, but that doesn't work either. Islam destroys from within. The mongols found this out when they beat Islam militarily (1258), but then became Islamic themselves.

The key to Islam's success is deceit. They simply move forward with their algorithm while the world is focused on the wrong things. Terrorism is a diversion.

Islam, unlike the west, is not interested in winning wars. They are only interested in conquest which is a different thing altogether. We think of war as a last method of resolving a dispute. We aren't interested in conquest, or as Colin Powell once put it, "we only ask for six feet of ground to bury our dead." Islam is only interested in conquest. The algorithm has only one final outcome: the entire world must fall under the control of Islam.

The key to Islam is they work in parallel to existing systems. Sharia is their law and they operate under it wherever they migrate, slowly changing the lands they occupy into Muslim lands. Here in America they claim sharia is only used to resolve religious issues. This is one of their many lies. They also claim not to use sharia at all (it's all just a right wing nutcase theory) but then we find it is operating in one place after another where Muslims live in America. If there were no sharia, why do Muslims cause an uproar when some legislation simply resolves that American laws will be the law of the land without even mentioning sharia? Because Muslims know exactly what they are doing.

The Muslims support 'diversity' when it suits them, then clamp down after it's served its purpose.

Lying is not only not a sin in Islam, it is a sacred duty. Taqiyya is part of the Quran's algorithm for advancing the cause of Islam - "...in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them."

Even better is to use the truth to mislead. Because human's have fought wars throughout the ages, Islam can claim to be a religion of peace in comparison. Tolerating no dissent, countries that are under full Muslim control can seem relatively peaceful. Defenders of Islam even making the outrageous claim that, "Slay non-Muslims wherever you find them" doesn't mean what you think it means. Who are you going to believe? Them, who are steadfastly insistent, or your own lying brain?

The problem for Islam is when they seem to have the upper hand, they get cocky and tell the truth, like this Muslim ambassador for the 18th century Barbary pirates that said...
“[the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
American marines still talk about the shores of Tripoli.

One common tactic is to disavow Muslims that are currently seen unfavorably, like ISIS, but at the same time claim they have a justification because we first caused them some grievance. Even if they have to go back hundreds of years for some supposed justification. Not that they agree with that justification. No never that, but it's only reasonable right? They will even contradict themselves as long as it furthers the progress of the algorithm.
Does social disruption cause terrorism apart from religious considerations?
Of course it does. But this is not THE explanation for Islamic terrorists. Terrorism is just a component of the Quran's algorithm. Don't get drawn into the why's of terrorism. Terrorism exists outside of Islam, but in Islam it is part of their algorithm. Other injustices also exist outside of Islam. How can the defenders of Islam use this to support Islam? Logically they can't, but since it's useful to cause confusion and doubt, they do.

Muslims are the masters of spin. For example. The crusades were an attempt to protect pilgrims going to Jerusalem from Muslim attack. Muslim spin: The Crusades were a series of attacks and wars by European Christianity against Muslim lands. Note that this statement is technically true. Those pilgrims were going to Jerusalem which the Muslims controlled. The crusaders could not possibly protect the pilgrims without fighting on Muslim lands. The Muslim wants you to get distracted from the fact that Muslims attacking pilgrims was the entire cause.

Make any point about Muslims and their defenders will point to non-Muslims doing the same thing or worse. Never will they allow the clear pattern of the Muslim algorithm written in black and white in the Quran not be obscured. A word can have different meanings, so they will claim the most common meaning is not what the Quran is saying. They can correctly point out that some fighting is justifiably defensive but then generalize to claim all Muslim fighting is just defense (as if slaying doesn't mean what you think it means.)

The solution to Islam is intolerance which goes against our ideals. We don't want to tell others how to live. That's the weakness that Islam exploits. Islam's algorithm does not allow other systems to exist. To tolerate Islam is an invitation to destruction. There is no other solution.

So we have to implement Islam's algorithm in reverse. Islam can do what it wants in other nations, but not here in America. Other countries are reaching this same correct solution. If Muslims want to remain in America they need to renounce Islam. Any indication that they are lying should result in revocation of citizenship and expulsion. Nothing less will work. An algorithm is a step by step process with a result that is certain. We face this reality or we lose our lives.

68 comments:

Ed said...

There are a couple flaws here. First, the First Amendment would not allow the prohibition of any religion, and laws and common practices that tried to do so would be struck down under the same reasoning that got such laws and practices used against Jews struck down. Secondly, there are already Muslims in America, generations of them, so many American Muslims were born in America. How could they be deported?

Anonymous said...

"The Quran is an algorithm (originally a Persian term) for conquering the world."

Is it? where in the Quran does it say that the goal is Conquering the world? No doubt it says something about spreading the belief, but all successful religions do that.

"Muslim world that does not tolerate anything outside of Islam."

And yet the Quran speaks of treaties and calls expects Muslims to honor such treaties as long as non-believes honor them.

"Looking at its history we can clearly see it taking over countries."

That's just silly, if it hadn't spread from it'd initial circle of adherents it wouldn't exist, the same charge of spreading is true of all major religions so if that's a reason to hate Islam it's a reason to hate Christianity etc.

"As it gains power in a country, first by demanding minority rights and later by imposing majority rule, it becomes less and less tolerant of rivals until you have a Muslim country."

And again, the same is true of all major religions, What do you think Christianity did with the Pagans it had to deal with?

"Islam destroys from within. The mongols found this out when they beat Islam militarily (1258), but then became Islamic themselves."

Mongolians are Buddhists.

"The key to Islam's success is deceit."

An extraordinary claim considering your inaccuracies so far, the Quran is there for all to read, and the emphasis throughout is dealing with others in good faith.

"Islam, unlike the west, is not interested in winning wars. They are only interested in conquest which is a different thing altogether."

An extraordinary claim considering your previous focus on passages that talk about defeating their opponents in war, probably more true to say that Islam is less inclined to start wars than Christian nations have been. (and do you really want to argue our propensity to start war?)

"We think of war as a last method of resolving a dispute."

We might (the average man) unfortunately our politicians in control of powerful armies are to addicted to the glory of war, they love to use war to conquer their enemies and too often rationalize the excuse they need to start wars.

"The key to Islam is they work in parallel to existing systems. Sharia is their law and they operate under it wherever they migrate."

That's what people do, they take the customs and laws they know with them, much of US and New Zealand law and practice is based on Westminster law. Though you do have a point that Sharia law is a problem for Islam in that it is part of the religion, so to practice their religion properly they should practice their laws.
In many states where Muslims are not the vast majority of the population but are a large minority there are two legal systems operating side by side.

"Here in America they claim sharia is only used to resolve religious issues. . ."

Sorry, I'm not in a position to comment (a policy I wish you'd adopt occasionally).

"Taqiyya"

Taqiyya (taqiya, taqiyah, taqiyyah) is a form of Islamic deception. The Quran (16:106 and 3:28) allows Muslims to lie in order to protect themselves or to protect the Muslim community.

Christians obviously don't lie. /sarc.

"Defenders of Islam even making the outrageous claim that, "Slay non-Muslims wherever you find them" doesn't mean what you think it means."

Here you are being dishonest, you've been shown the correct context, which you then ignore.

Anonymous said...

"The problem for Islam is when they seem to have the upper hand, they get cocky and tell the truth, like this Muslim ambassador for the 18th century Barbary pirates that said..."

I know that's a really popular paraphrasing of a quote (it's not directly what the ambassador in question said, it's Jefferson's interpretation of what he said, but even if it were accurate word for word it was said once by a diplomat over a hundred years ago seeking leverage, if it were accurate it would be said more often and you would be quoting more recent examples, and it contradicts what the Quran actually says.

"One common tactic is to disavow Muslims that are currently seen unfavorably, like ISIS, but at the same time claim they have a justification because we first caused them some grievance."

We did with the invasion of Iraq on a false pretext (as Colin Powell acknowledges and is now nearly universally accepted) and allowing the slaughter of hundreds of unarmed Sunni protester - as you know.

"Even if they have to go back hundreds of years for some supposed justification."

Example?

"Don't get drawn into the why's of terrorism."

I hardly need to translate that, you're saying ignore what actually happened to motivate people to become terrorists. If that had remained British policy the IRA would still be bombing. That statement of yours is an appalling example of rationalizing, but is the one you've been using throughout you argument - ignore facts that don't fit what you want to believe.

"Never will they allow the clear pattern of the Muslim algorithm written in black and white in the Quran not be obscured."

To judge any "algorithm" in the Quran one would have to actually read it, you have not!! Anyone who wants to portray Christians as barbaric could very, very easily do so by quoting selected passages from the Bible out of context:Romans 12:20 "you will heap burning coals on his (your enemies) head,"

"The solution to Islam is intolerance which goes against our ideals." No Christian Ken, it does not "go against your ideals" it goes against the teachings of your GOD.

Your last paragraph has been addressed by Ed.

Anonymous said...

Both of those were from me . . . Obviously
Andrew W

Anonymous said...

There is another problem with your theory of world domination, which I'm reluctant to raise because it'll just give you an excuse to ignore my other points, and that is that world domination by a power that is unpopular and doesn't serve the needs of the people is impossible in anything other than the short term (unless it were imposed from an external power), if your fears of Muslims taking over America without warfare were to come to pass it could only happen because most Americans wanted it to happen, and if Muslims are Humans ( perhaps you doubt that they are) they wouldn't adopt a religion that didn't serve their needs.

It's basically the same argument that was demonstrated with the failure of communism and the failure of the domino theory, if it don't work it don't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

Andrew W.

ken_anthony said...

Ed asks, How could they be deported?

We deport Nazis and Communists. We can use the 1st amendment against Islamic Muslims that violate the worship of other religions. Laws are made by people. If they understand an existential threat they can carve out specific provisions to respond to it. Some things can't be tolerated. Muslims that want to continue in Islam better come up with a reformed version that is not an extermination algorithm.

Andrew asks, "Where in the Quran does it say that the goal is Conquering the world?

An algorithm is a series of steps that result in a conclusion that is certain. An algorithm itself does not say what its goal is, but it always has one.

And yet the Quran speaks of treaties...

All part of the algorithm. It is the end state that is important.

if it hadn't spread from it'd initial circle of adherents it wouldn't exist

I said, "taking over countries." They could spread the word all they liked without doing that.

the same is true of all major religions What part of taking over countries and not tolerating non-Muslims do you not understand?

Mongolians are Buddhists

Are you claiming the Mongols did not at that time and place convert to Islam?

the emphasis throughout is dealing with others in good faith.

Taqiyya.

Do you really want to argue our propensity to start war?

Yes, bring it on. You obviously fail to see the trap I set for you.

...our politicians...

Ding! ding! ding! Ya got one right. Unfortunately it's not relevant to my argument.

That's what people do

Sharia is a problem when it violates American law.

[Muslims] claim sharia is only used to resolve religious issues

I'm surprised you haven't heard this or even claimed it yourself.

Christians obviously don't lie

Irrelevant. Taqiyya is a fundamental part of the Quran algorithm.

you've been shown the correct context

Which you then over generalize to where it doesn't apply.

it contradicts what the Quran actually says

Slay the unbeliever where ever you find them. Yeah, I see how that can be confusing. Especially to those that yell Allahu Akbar and aren't hundreds of years old.

the slaughter of hundreds of unarmed Sunni protester

Can you back up that slander of the American military?

ignore what actually happened to motivate people to become terrorists

Yes, because it's irrelevant. They use the Quran to justify it.

To judge any "algorithm"...

You have my judgement.

it goes against the teachings of your GOD

Actually no. But that's what I would expect from somebody astonished by Romans 12.

Re:last paragraph. I never said it would be an easy solution. But to counter a certainty requires specific actions.

ken_anthony said...

world domination by a power that is unpopular and doesn't serve the needs of the people is impossible

Domination is impossible? We should have the word stricken from the dictionary then!

Except we have examples of Muslim countries that dominate their own populations. So if you're right, they will become non-Muslim.

ken_anthony said...

Sorry, but I let one slip by...

Reversing the Quran's algorithm has nothing to do with Christians.

Anonymous said...

Once again you take out of context.

Name me one country that has been controlled by a government long term that was unpopular, didn't serve the needs of the people, and wasn't supported by an external power. The closest I can think of that comes to meeting those conditions would be South Africa and Rhodesia, but those both fell over soon after they lost their foreign support base.

Andrew W.

Anonymous said...

You probably find this hard to believe, being as indoctrinated against Islam as thoroughly as you are, but the vast majority of Muslims believe in Islam because they're happy living as Muslims, who are we as outsiders to tell them that they're supposed to feel unhappy and dominated?

ken_anthony said...

the vast majority of Muslims believe in Islam because they're happy living as Muslims

I find that easy to believe. I do not have a single thing against Muslims. But we do not have to allow their Quran algorithm to kill us. We do not have to allow those that would kill us or support those that would to remain in this country or continue to be citizens. They can practice Islam to their hearts content. But we can not allow them to subvert this country.

While sedition does not seem to be universally part of all mosques in America, it has been found in many (they can't always hide behind not using English. We have people that do understand what they say in private.)

Sedition is punishable regardless of a person's religion.

hanelyp said...

A law targeting Islam by name is a strategic error. Rather, compose laws targeting those practices and teachings intrinsic to Islam that make it a cancer. Especially those practices and teachings that the apologists publicly deny. That way you avoid giving them the 1st amendment as a shield, and hopefully catch them in hypocrisy as they outrage in defense of the indefensible in opposing these laws. These same laws would also apply to other religions that may come out with these uncivilized practices and teachings.

ken_anthony said...

hanelyp,

You have a point. I think how they are dealing with Sharia without mentioning it by name is a step in that direction. Do you have examples?

The algorithm angle is my way of trying to avoid the games being played. With the benefit of being true.

Anonymous said...

To judge any "algorithm"...

You have my judgement.

Your judgment would only have value if you'd actually read enough of the Quran to make an informed judgment, your "judgement" is based on nothing but ignorance, bigotry and prejudice.

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

ignorance, bigotry and prejudice

There's no such thing as not being ignorant. There's only a question of how much.

As for bigotry, I am intolerant of lies. I am very tolerant of people I disagree with when they seem sincere.

Prejudice is a byproduct of abstraction. We all do it to some degree because that's just how the human mind works.

My judgement is based on what I know. If you add to my knowledge my judgement will adjust. Making assertions does not add anything to knowledge.

Perhaps Islam just has a public relations problem, but they do seem a bit over represented in the terrorist business.

I think I mentioned that insults aren't going to win me over.

ken_anthony said...

Andrew, do you sincerely want to adjust my thinking? Explain to me how Islamic terrorists, who are familiar with the Quran, use it to justify their acts.

Anonymous said...

I've covered it Ken, from their perspective with the G.W. Bush invasion of Iraq the US and allies attacked them in breach of the treaty between Iraq and the US after that the US was backing the Shia government in Iraq when the Sunni were ejected from that government - despite, as the video I posted at Rand's shows, many American's familiar with the situation in Iraq strongly advising the Obama government to take a stand against the Shia take over.

As far as my unkind but accurate comments criticizing you, you've never shown a capacity to revise your position in discussions on other topics no matter what the weight of evidence against you, so I wasn't expecting you to show any ability to do so on this one, certainly not during the course of the discussions.

Regards
Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

you've never shown a capacity to revise your position

Andrew, let me give you some insight into my character. Google INTJ and read up on it. My temperament is rare, more stubborn than any of 15 other types, not influenced by assertions or appeals to authority, but can instantly be persuaded by a single fact and then be just as stubborn in holding that new understanding. I'm actually extremely easy to persuade if you do it right, but impossible to persuade if you do it wrong. You've done both (in case you haven't noticed) but you more and more are moving toward the wrong arguments. The funny thing is I absolutely know you are capable of better. That being said, unless you realize and understand what I'm saying all you'll do is strengthen my resolve. You accuse me of being dishonest. That will never work. It only indicates you really aren't interested in persuading me.

I sincerely and honestly believe the Quran is designed for the outcome we see in the headlines. You say I'm ignorant and I would be the first to agree with you as I do not consider ignorance to be an insult but actually a simple fact that applies to everyone (with the provision that I have absolutely no regard for the willfully ignorant.) Ignorance is something any of us can improve unlike other qualities where that is not so.)

Also know that I meditate on your arguments, by which I mean, while you think I've dismissed them without thought I'm actually playing them over and over in my mind to see if they can be made to fit into the existing structure of my understanding.

I don't know that I can help you understand me or that you would even care, but when you make accusations that just aren't so it does nothing, absolutely nothing, in influencing me. I hold truth above all else (which is not a claim that I possess the final truth.) INTJ's know in the core of their soul that truth is immutable and never fully revealed. It is the definition of the scientific mind.

If you are wrong, it is unlikely you will change my opinion since the facts to do so will not exist. If you are right, you still need to reveal those facts. Try not to get too frustrated.

ken_anthony said...

from their perspective with the G.W. Bush invasion of Iraq the US and allies attacked them in breach of the treaty between Iraq and the US

As I've already said, Saddam breached the treaty by shooting at aircraft in a no fly zone. Bush delayed any response for much too long, but that doesn't mean it didn't matter. One of the huge mistakes we make in foreign policy is not letting our opponents immediately know what is unacceptable. As far as their perspective? it is simply wrong and I have little sympathy for that kind of error in judgement. The bible principle is, "let your yes, be yes and your no, be no." Our error is not being clear on the issues.

after that the US was backing the Shia government in Iraq when the Sunni were ejected from that government - despite, as the video I posted at Rand's shows, many American's familiar with the situation in Iraq strongly advising the Obama government to take a stand against the Shia take over.

They needed to realize it wasn't the American people making this mistake. It was the American administration. So again I have no sympathy for their error in understanding. They had access to the correct information.

Originally we had put into place a government that gave Sunni, Shia and Kurds all a stake in things. We were naive in thinking that would hold. We should have probably divided the country up into three parts, with each part having assets to move forward and protect themselves, but that isn't the way politicians think. The British actually created this mess.

Taking this all in, regardless of the terrorists perspective, they just do not have justification for their actions. I don't care how stressed they were. You have indicated anyone would respond as they have. I know, for a fact, in my very core, from personal experience (are ya following me?) that this just is not so (assertions otherwise by themselves will never alone persuade me and would be a wasted effort. You have to get beyond just assertions if persuasion is your goal.)

ken_anthony said...

no matter what the weight of evidence

Focus on quality of evidence, not quantity. One fact alone will persuade me, hundreds of facts may not.

ken_anthony said...

For example, to understand Surah 2:191 all you had to do was point me to Surah 2:190. No mountain of other facts would be more persuasive to me than that.

But it does not follow that 9:5 should be treated the same way. That's generalizing in an unjustified way. You would need to find the one fact that does apply. That fact also has to address the issue that Muslims themselves have expressed the same understanding as I have.

I didn't choose the Barbary pirates ambassador because it was all I cold find. I chose it because I knew about their influence during our countries founding and it was simply the first reference I came across. Now when you say the ambassador actually said something different (without providing that evidence but just asserting so) I have to consider if Jefferson accurately represented it or if you are correct that it is his interpretation (a double issue to resolve. I happen to think Jefferson was pretty good with words so that becomes another hurdle to overcome.)

Jim Davis said...

"...let me give you some insight into my character. Google INTJ and read up on it."

Ken, just out of curiosity did you take some test that placed you as INTJ or did you just read the description and recognize yourself?

And note the uptick in traffic now that you no longer require a Google account.

ken_anthony said...

What happened was I was an FAA contractor in Seattle a little over 20 years ago in their TMO (Telecommunications Management and Operations) dept. Anyway, they took the whole department out for a management retreat (your tax dollars at work!) and the whole event involved testing us and spending time understanding the results through a series of facilitated events. It was amazing in the things it revealed to me about myself (my intuition is off the charts - that's the N in iNtj - which is confusing because I often reach a correct conclusion and have to spend sometimes a lot of time figuring out why?) Over the years I've retested myself both online and the test in the book, 'please understand me' and it always comes out INTJ even though my understanding is it can change over the years. I haven't tested for about a decade so it may have drifted since then because I did have some tenancy toward another one of the rarer temperaments (the only one of the 16 types with a perception that the other 15 do not have.)

Until that management retreat I always harbored the feeling that there was something terribly wrong with me because I really do not see things the way others do. It was after that retreat that I finally felt I was ok. Rare, but not somehow defective. You have no idea what a relief it was for me.

Now while I'm telling you this, in parallel my mind is munching on what prompts you to ask the question. I believe a part of the reason is you are familiar with Meyer-Briggs in a way that most people aren't. I'm curious to any insight you might have?

Jim Davis said...

Now while I'm telling you this, in parallel my mind is munching on what prompts you to ask the question. I believe a part of the reason is you are familiar with Meyer-Briggs in a way that most people aren't. I'm curious to any insight you might have?

I know next to nothing about this particular personality test. But I've read persuasive criticisms of such tests in general. The conclusions are that such categories are about as useful as astrological sun signs or Dungeons and Dragons alignments.

Anonymous said...

I had a look at the Meyer-Briggs system about 20 years ago and just did the test again, INTP then and now.

I was pleased to see that the most famous INTP's are people like Newton, Einstein, Eisenhower and Darwin and not surprised that the most famous INTJ's are people like Lance Armstrong, William J. Bennett, "drug czar", Hillary Clinton, Professor Moriarty and Hannibal Lecter.
So unlike Jim Davis I think there must be something to it.

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

Even the ancient Greeks recognized four temperaments... Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholic and Phlegmatic that we still acknowledge today.

Of course they blew it with fire, water, dirt and air!

I don't know what value it has, other than it seems to have some use in how people communicate and are understood. The fact that test results over years time are consistent suggests something is being measured. It's the value of that something that's questionable.

ken_anthony said...

Jim, I'm a bit critical of it myself because humans see patterns that aren't really there. However, during this retreat they separated us into groups by type and gave us a number of other tests regarding our perceptions of a story. Only one of the groups, but all members, were able to perceive some things related in the story. No other group did. If there were nothing to it, randomness should have dominated. There was no messaging to that particular group that would otherwise explain that result.

ken_anthony said...

Andrew, ya missed some really interesting INTJs...

Vladimir Lenin, Ted Kaczynski, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Hawking, John Nash, Elon Musk, Nikola Tesla, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx.



Anonymous said...

With some of those - Lenin, Rand, Marx, Hitchens, Beivik and others it's pretty obvious that INTJ's have a tendency to leap to conclusions from which they will not be shaken.

Newton was INTP on the site I looked at but INTJ on your site, as I'm aware Newton was seen as arrogant, humourness and uncompromising by many of his contemporaries I've generously decided that you can have him.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/famous-intps

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

Thanks, I've always liked Newton even with his oddities. Actually, all of them can be considered odd... which is why they can make advances others could not.

Don't forget Dan Aykroyd. I heard he's big into conspiracy theories and drove Sidney Poitier bonkers on the set of sneakers.

ken_anthony said...

conclusions from which they will not be shaken

Yes, but don't forget the point that goes with that. They can easily be persuaded if presented with the right new fact and will be just as stubborn with the new position. You seem to think this is a weakness when it is actually a strength. Sort of the exact opposite of Donald Trump.

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen any evidence of the "easily persuaded" bit, in either our discussions or in the links on the Meyer-Briggs system.

This bit I really get:

A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending failure. They spend considerable time second-guessing themselves. The open-endedness (from Perceiving) conjoined with the need for competence (NT) is expressed in a sense that one's conclusion may well be met by an equally plausible alternative solution, and that, after all, one may very well have overlooked some critical bit of data. An INTP arguing a point may very well be trying to convince himself as much as his opposition. In this way INTPs are markedly different from INTJs, who are much more confident in their competence and willing to act on their convictions.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/intp

And is why I'm satisfied I'm right and your wrong, I start with my basic principles:
Evolutionary instinct is the overwhelming influence on Human behavior.
All things are relative, in terms of ethics there is no objective Good and Bad, outside of what nature and cultures dictate.

I didn't arrive at my current position on Islam over-night, and it's not one I've held since childhood, but I don't see it changing because I find it consistent with everything else I know - and I do mean everything else.

so while we may see ourselves today as morally superior to our grandparents who would have been disgusted at the changes in laws around morality, and we are condescending towards the morality laws they supported, neither we nor they are correct, laws written for a culture by that culture are going to be moral for that culture, so unlike you I don't feel the need to see my ethics imposed on everyone else in the world, and am keen to argue against those who feel that their moral superiority justifies them imposing their morality on other cultures - whom ever they are.

I like to think of it all in terms of Einstein's relativity, there are no privileged frames of reference, it's all relative.

Compare that to a typical INTJ, you were brought up as a Christian, it's at the core of your belief and behavioural system, you see Good and Bad as objective, almost tangible and certainly universal (as do your counterparts in the devout mainstream Islamic world).

I do wonder how the social evolution we've seen fits into your beliefs, do you think your Grandparents were simply wrong in opposing homosexual marriage? Or perhaps you see gay marriage and homosexuality as morally wrong and will do until the day you die? Do you think that Christian beliefs are a moral constant, or do you to some extent see them as flexible and that it's OK that they change with the times?

I notice you haven't addressed my challenge to you to name a country that has long term had unpopular rule imposed on it by a government that has not had outside support.

Also while I'm at it I'll cal you out on this:

I didn't choose the Barbary pirates ambassador because it was all I cold find. I chose it because I knew about their influence during our countries founding and it was simply the first reference I came across. Now when you say the ambassador actually said something different (without providing that evidence but just asserting so)

I did not say that "the ambassador actually said something different" in fact I allowed that the ambassador may well have being falsely making that claim as a form of leverage.

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

Good stuff in that last comment. Here's another difference between us... I like to focus on one issue at a time (thus fitting it into the entire framework of my understanding.) You like using a shotgun. Let me respond to each issue one at a time...

ken_anthony said...

I haven't seen any evidence of the "easily persuaded" bit

Did you miss that I immediately agreed with you on Surah 2:191? From now 'til eternity I will defend the understanding you persuaded me of (I don't at the moment see any fact that would change me from that position.) Another example is when Rand persuaded me there is no such thing as intrinsic value. All value is subjective and requires an observer. I switched my view on intrinsic value to his and haven't altered it since.

ken_anthony said...

As an INTJ I am not haunted by my conclusions. However, I know that all conclusions are subject to revision when new info occurs. In which case I'd be just as confident of the new conclusion, but always aware that it is subject to revision with new facts as well.

ken_anthony said...

I'm satisfied I'm right and your wrong

I'm never satisfied because a new piece of info can switch things around at any time. It's never about me or you. The most I can say is given the facts I'm aware of this is the conclusion I'm confident of based on those facts.

ken_anthony said...

there is no objective Good and Bad

Some things are relative, others are absolute. Murder is always bad. Killing may not be.

ken_anthony said...

morally superior to our grandparents

We do not over time become more moral or less moral as a people. We individually learn morals or we do not. Thinking oneself superior to others is a huge (and huge is not a huge enough word) mistake.

Anonymous said...

there is no objective Good and Bad

Some things are relative, others are absolute. Murder is always bad. Killing may not be.


You should be better than that, saying "murder is always bad" is a tautology. Define murder um, killing someone deliberately when it's bad to do so.

ken_anthony said...

you see Good and Bad as objective, almost tangible and certainly universal

Fair enough. Good and evil definitely exist. However, our understanding of what is good or evil requires training as we mature. It is a parents responsibility to initiate that training. As adults we all must continue that training ourselves. Always testing ourselves regarding our understanding.

To say evil is relative, in cases where it isn't, is itself evil. We are all sinners.

Anonymous said...

Thinking oneself [as morally] superior to others is a huge (and huge is not a huge enough word) mistake.

You think yourself as morally superior to others - or is this going to turn into one of those "I don't think of myself as morally superior to Muslims who supporting terrorism, I just think of my morals as being better than their morals. (vis-à-vis your argument that "it's not them I hate it's the evil that they do that I hate" or words to that effect).

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

Do you think that Christian beliefs are a moral constant

This is a very subtle question. The standard is not what Christians think. The standard is what the creator of the universe thinks.

Romans 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.

I know you're going to beat me with that scripture, but don't be too quick about it, ok?

ken_anthony said...

I allowed that the ambassador may well have being falsely making that claim

My perspective is you are twisting the facts to fit your preconceived conclusion. While it is a possibility, Occam's razer says you shouldn't do that.

By putting your conclusion ahead of the facts you become the un-persuadable person.

Anonymous said...

To say evil is relative, in cases where it isn't, is itself evil. We are all sinners.

To me that's a nonsensical statement, and a good chunk of why I don't like the word Evil, it's intended to have a meaning of "bad" in objective universal terms, I don't think there is bad in objective universal terms, the only thing that comes close is action contrary to instinct, which is (I think) insanity.

I better emphasis that this does not mean that I think that "bad" in the context of what is socially acceptable is somehow diminished, that not believing in universal evil makes "murder" (Killing in breach of the laws of Man) any a lesser crime in my eyes.

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

I don't feel the need to see my ethics imposed on everyone else

Just meditate on that.

ken_anthony said...

You think yourself as morally superior to others

No I do not. Again, see Romans 2:1

What I try to do is understand, not judge.

Anonymous said...

"I allowed that the ambassador may well have being falsely making that claim"

My perspective is you are twisting the facts to fit your preconceived conclusion. While it is a possibility, Occam's razer says you shouldn't do that.

By putting your conclusion ahead of the facts you become the un-persuadable person.


I think I'm putting forward a theory to fit reality. If the ambassadors words were true the Quran wouldn't qualify which and when non-Muslims could be slaughtered - as the ambassador didn't, But more importantly if the ambassadors words were correct the huge numbers of Muslims in a position to slaughter non-Muslims today who fail to do so would be in breach of their obligations to their God as demanded by the Quran.

Now, you might be into the theory that they're all just biding their time, waiting for the right moment to strike so that they can slaughter all us non-believers in our sleep.
But to me that just sounds like a nut case conspiracy theory.

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

it's not them I hate it's the evil that they do that I hate

I can very easily prove this is true and expect you simply will not believe me. Anyone can change. One of my favorite stories is about a vicious brutal japanese murderer in prison that everyone including his guards was afraid of. He became a Christian in prison because another Christian didn't hate him but just the things he did. That murderer changed his whole disposition so that when the time came to carry out his death sentence the warden and guards cried. If you don't understand that I am not going to be able to persuade you.

Anonymous said...

"I don't feel the need to see my ethics imposed on everyone else"

Just meditate on that.

I don't see myself as imposing my ethics on you, if you want to end this discussion say so and I'll stop commenting. Further I don't expect you to stop practicing the ethics you have so long as you don't impose them on others who are not of your society. Think of it in libertarian terms, do what you like on your property, so long as you're not imposing on your neighbors I don't care.

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

I think I'm putting forward a theory to fit reality

Yes, I am aware you do believe that. But again, that's just your internal justification for not allowing the facts to adjust your beliefs. This is literally psych 101. Every time we are introduced to new facts we all have to make this exact same choice.

the huge numbers of Muslims in a position to slaughter non-Muslims today who fail to do so would be in breach of their obligations to their God as demanded by the Quran.

That's exactly what some terrorists have said, but it is more nuanced than that. Muslims that are 'For it' are also meeting their obligation to slaughter. They are not doing it themselves but are supportive of it like those that hide terrorists in their community.

ken_anthony said...

I don't see myself as imposing my ethics on you

Imposing is obviously too strong a word. I don't see you that way at all. Forgive me for not choosing my words more carefully.

All I meant was we all have our individual moral framework and any interaction will convey those personal ideas.

ken_anthony said...

that just sounds like a nut case conspiracy theory

To me as well. So let's not use strawmen.

Anonymous said...

Muslims that are 'For it' are also meeting their obligation to slaughter. They are not doing it themselves but are supportive of it like those that hide terrorists in their community.

So how many Muslims do you think are "for it"? The evidence I've seen would suggest a small minority, and if that's the case that the majority are not "for it", using your logic those "for it" should be reformable into being members of the Islamic population not "for it".

(which I accept for most of them, even members of ISIS).

Andrew W

Anonymous said...

I can very easily prove this is true and expect you simply will not believe me. Anyone can change. One of my favorite stories is about a vicious brutal japanese murderer in prison that everyone including his guards was afraid of. He became a Christian in prison because another Christian didn't hate him but just the things he did. That murderer changed his whole disposition so that when the time came to carry out his death sentence the warden and guards cried. If you don't understand that I am not going to be able to persuade you.

Very good, sounds like the Christian was applying Romans 14-21 and it worked.

How does that compare to your advice in the post above?:

The solution to Islam is intolerance which goes against our ideals. . .
If Muslims want to remain in America they need to renounce Islam. Any indication that they are lying should result in revocation of citizenship and expulsion. Nothing less will work.


And do you think a similar "intolerant" strategy is required to deal to Muslims in other countries or do you think applying Romans 14-21 might be worth a crack?

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

The evidence I've seen would suggest a small minority

So what happened to the evidence Leland provided for you?

It would seem your conclusion over ruled this evidence as well.

ken_anthony said...

"intolerant" strategy

Don't confuse what I'm saying we should be intolerant of. We should not tolerate actions that are an existential threat. This is not the intolerance you are suggesting.

ken_anthony said...

do you think a similar "intolerant" strategy is required to deal to Muslims in other countries

That's the whole point of having countries. They can do whatever they want in their own borders. However, when the people of Iran asked for our help, Obama did nothing. This is inexcusable to me.

In most cases the people of a country should decide their own fate.

Anonymous said...

So what happened to the evidence Leland provided for you?

That site usually misrepresents the surveys it refers to:

"20% of Muslims in Britain sympathise with 7/7 bombers"

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.
The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.


I think the points I've enboldened are the more important, these were not mentioned by the site Leland linked to, which emphasizes worst figures and then twists their meaning.

Quite possibly, depending on how you define it I could be considered as having "sympathy" for the "feelings and motives" if not for the bombers, at least for people who see themselves as fighting the oppression of the Shia government in Iraq, and like 99% of British Muslims I condemn the action of the bombers.

Andrew W

Anonymous said...

Don't confuse what I'm saying we should be intolerant of. We should not tolerate actions that are an existential threat. This is not the intolerance you are suggesting.

No, by demanding If Muslims want to remain in America they need to renounce Islam. Any indication that they are lying should result in revocation of citizenship and expulsion. Nothing less will work. you are clearly showing intolerance of Muslims, not their actions (unless you somehow feel that telling people which God to prey to is an action that is your business rather than just theirs).

Anonymous said...

However, when the people of Iran asked for our help, Obama did nothing. This is inexcusable to me.

I don't know what you're referring to.

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

you are clearly showing intolerance of Muslims

Do not conflate Muslims and Islam. They are not the same thing.

If Islam is an existential threat it can not be tolerated in this country. Muslims are free to believe anything they like (as are all people.) If they choose Islam, according to this solution to the problem, they choose to leave this country.

The chance of this being implemented is slim to none so I wouldn't get too worked up over it.

ken_anthony said...

I don't know what you're referring to

It was a big deal with Iranians killed by the govt.

ken_anthony said...

I think the points I've enboldened are the more important

Do you see what you are doing? I count over 150 links to various sources and you've dismissed them all because you already hold a belief you will not be shaken from. You can't just highlight two points and dismiss all the rest. You must include all the points. If that sight is leaving out information you believe important, they are just doing what you are doing and neither is right.

Of course if we were keeping score, they neglected two points and you've neglected hundreds (each of the over 150 links has multiple parts.) Although to be fair I assume they left out other info that you didn't highlight. This doesn't necessarily mean they were trying to mislead. It is typical to focus only on data that supports one's point. Not right, but typical (whatever side you're on.)

Anonymous said...

Do you see what you are doing? I count over 150 links to various sources and you've dismissed them all because you already hold a belief you will not be shaken from. You can't just highlight two points and dismiss all the rest. You must include all the points. If that sight is leaving out information you believe important, they are just doing what you are doing and neither is right.

I've seen the site and the links before, they haven't changed much from months ago.

Can I point out that you haven't followed all the links either, and no, I don't need to follow every trail of trash presented to me, neither do you, and nor does anyone else.

If you do find a specific link in that pile that you think strengthens your case for hating Islam present it, I'm not wasting time on trash, it's up to you if you want to.

Andrew W

Anonymous said...

I posted a reply to your comment 12:20 AM (is it really that time where you are? Get to sleep) that's not appeared.

Basically saying the US would have given the kiss of death to potential allies within Iran if she offered any "help", and those potential allies would have known it.

“The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes.”


― Stanley Kubrick

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

Can I point out that you haven't followed all the links either

Certainly true. However, that doesn't mean you can simply dismiss them. The links are summarized. Following the links is just a convenience to verify them. Also, you may not trust the site that provides the links, but the links themselves are from various sources (so should have various levels of trust in themselves.)

I see a very clear pattern of you dismissing any data that contradicts your world view. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does suggest you need to consider it.

Yes, it was 1 AM and I was exhausted, but felt you deserved some reply. I think you hold the view you do because you are a good guy. All Muslims are human first and probably as decent as most people.

I know you are an atheist and I understand that position. I know there is a creator. Who created the angels (a distinct creation from mankind.) What Islam calls Jinn are nothing but angels persuaded to follow Satan (a real being, not some cartoon character.) The bible says the whole world is in the power of Satan. Satan once had the same standing as other angels (see him in the assembly of other angels in the book of Job.) But he was enticed by his desire to be worshiped and drew a third of the angels with him (demons or Jinn.)

All religions are the dwelling place of demons (Revelations.) All religion is a tool used by Satan to mislead. That you can't see that 'slay the infidel' is Satanic (and would be just as much so if another religion said, 'slay the Muslim') show Satan's ability to 'blind the mind.'

Now you know a bit more of my view. ;-)

Anonymous said...

All religions are the dwelling place of demons (Revelations.) All religion is a tool used by Satan to mislead.

Here you state that for you to accept Islam as not Evil you would have to dismiss a central tenant of your religion, this you are not capable of, therefore all your claims of openness to my position were false.

Andrew W

ken_anthony said...

That does not follow Andrew. I believe what I believe. As I have said, I am eminently persuadable. All you need are facts. You have shown that you put your belief framework ahead of facts. You are judging me based on your temperament. Mine is exactly the opposite. I can't dismiss facts (as much as I'd like to sometimes.)

For example, though it was nice of Leland to provide those links, years of reading news articles had already shown that a large percentage were 'for it.' Then there are my own eyes. After 9-11 and other terror events, crowds of Muslims were cheering in the streets. I have to assume they were for it as well. I'm not assuming they represent all Muslims, but they do represent too many.

Yes, persuading me to abandon my beliefs would take effort as I didn't come to the overnight. But they aren't the result of being gullable either. True Christianity requires something very akin to the scientific method as found in Hebrews 11.