logic to a point

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Dec 19, 2010 at 03:13

Michel writes:

"... Havas discusses politely and never resorted to slandering the opposition. Doesn't he deserve at least some respect in return?.."

Havas has posted from time to time on this blog over the last 18 months or so as far as I am aware. So his readership has not been lost despite comments fairly or unfairly made. I recall he said he worked as an engineer or something similar - so he might seem to be more 'moderate' than others simply because he realises the relationship between facts and outcomes and is used to dealing with them. His approach for the most part appeared to have been 'reasonable' and more laissez-faire than most muslims who come on here and insist that Islam is the 'supreme' religion, it should dominate , Mo is perfect, buraks exist, everyone else, especially Jews - suck, yada, yada, yada. It seems though that in the case of Israelis - he's towing the Turkish line again on the deaths of the armed pacifists in welcoming party on the Turkish ship ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTmF3njCZf8) i.e. those killed in self defence by the Israeli boarding party - when the israelis realised they weren't going to be served tea and biscuits. Not that Israel can't be heavy handed at times - but given their tactics and attitude of their neighbours - who blames them?

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/144199

However what irks me personally - is that many muslims use logic up to a certain point but go no further. e.g the koran is either 'perfect' - or it is not. To use examples in my previous post - Buraks existed or they did not. Mo split the moon with his little finger or he did not. He married and slept with a 9 year old when he was 53 or he did not. He was responsible for mass murder or he was not. He was the last 'prophet' or he was not. indeed - he was a prophet or was not. There are no shades of grey here - these things either occurred or they did not. Sharia is beneficial for society or it is not. True or false. If a muslim concedes that some are false - then why do they not take a cold hard impartial look at everything else they've had to swallow? But by far the great majority find it impossible to even consider the possibility that they might have been conned.

The point is - at some stage for them logic goes out the window and myth and the handed down superstition of ages takes over. To seek out truth - by necessity one must drop one's preconceptions and previous beliefs. It really is a shame that muslim cultures completely discourage looking down any other avenue to such an extent that in many muslim countries people can become ostracized and persecuted. In fact - muslims in the west who dare to start exploring other philosophies and religions face repercussions in western countries from muslims maintaining the status quo.

"....I myself made my case in terms of Turkey in a pragmatic manner and invited readers to debate my arguments, so I can learn and fine tune. I have no problem with anyone of a different opinion, for as long, as the debate remains unemotional and factual. As soon, as it becomes personal however, I draw the line..."

OK, on an issue that is very high on the list of serious issues vis a vis Islam and the West - let's be pragmatic and deal with facts - we'll take the case of the muslim claim to the 'dome of the rock' and parts of Jerusalem. It is based on the rumour that that is where Mo flew to on the back of a Burak from either Mecca or Medina either overnight or in a sew seconds. This is the muslim stance - no matter that Jews have lived there and had it as their centre since at least 3500BC. The muslim claim to ownership is an emotional one - based only on emotion and not facts at all.

Like yourself - I have no problem with people having different opinions - but when they proffer these opinions as valid arguments - I dismiss what they say. and make the inference that most of what they say is based on equally invalid assumptions.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".