What are “rights”?
A right is an existential condition that permits an individual to live, act, and speak in ways that promote his existence and happiness as a rational being.
“Rights” as perceived by Islam are privileges conferred on Muslims exclusively by Sharia and Islamic doctrine, and on no one else. “What is inside Sharia is good and permissible, what is outside Sharia is evil and prohibited.”
“Rationality” and “Reason” do not even have the same meanings in Islam that Westerners subscribe to.
The bases of Shariah are four: two are revelatory, coming from Allah, and include the two core sources, the Qur’ān, Islam’s holy book, and the Sunnah (the practice and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s)); and two are based in rational endeavor, consensus (ijma) and analogical juristic reasoning (qiyās).
All other quotations are from The Ayn Rand Lexicon, found on http://aynrandlexicon.com/, according to subject.
Rand on reason and logic:
The distinguishing characteristic of logic (the art of non-contradictory identification) indicates the nature of the actions (actions of consciousness required to achieve a correct identification) and their goal (knowledge…..
“It’s logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality.” Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification. Logic has a single law, the Law of Identity, and its various corollaries. If logic has nothing to do with reality, it means that the Law of Identity is inapplicable to reality. If so, then: a.) things are not what they are; b.) things can be and not be at the same time, in the same respect, i.e., reality is made up of contradictions. If so, by what means did anyone discover it? By illogical means…..
Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge—and, therefore, the rejection of reason means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality.
The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.
Sharia and Islam, as a “unified” package of ethics, is based, primarily, on those three old hoary diseases of man’s existence: superstition (the purported existence of a supreme being, in this case, Allah), consensus (so many people believe in Allah, he must exist, beginning with Mohammad), and, emotions or feelings. The latter are not tools of cognition; they are responses to what one observes, that is, when one employs one’s cognitive faculties.
Muslims are not bothered an iota that their “ideal man” is a rapist, a killer, a savage thug. Being a savage thug is a means to an end for the average jihadist: a guarantee of Paradise if he has died in the act of slaughtering the infidel (that is, an individual or group that has “left” the Islamic faith, because Islamic theology proclaims that all men are born Muslim and are obliged to maintain fidelity to Islam).
Sharia Law is blatantly anti-human. It does not exist to further human happiness. It exists to impose guilt and punishment upon the living for living. And for having values not in compliance with Islam’s Sharia. For disobeying Allah’s will. Contradictions are rife in the Koran, the Sunnah, and the Hadith. But their presence in those documents has not stopped Islam’s religious authorities from holding them up as things to be revered, acknowledged, and adhered to as moral diktats under pain of death if they are not obeyed. If Allah wishes to water the mountain tops, then he will command water to run uphill.
|A supplicant's confession of subserviance|
Janet Tavakoli in her Gatestone article, Islam’s “Human Rights” of November 5, stressed the bizarre Islamic notion of “rights:
No intelligent government should impair the right of free speech to placate people who falsely claim they are victims when often they are, in fact, aggressors.
To the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [now Conference], however, all human rights must first be based on Islamic religious law, Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is a human right, whatever is outside Sharia is not a human right. [Emphasis mine.]
The rape of non-Muslim women is sanctioned by the Koran. It is seen by Muslims as a form of conquest. In practical terms, German and Swedish women are captives of Muslim “migrants” and can rape non-Muslim women with relative impunity (thanks to the dhimmified judicial systems of those countries) . The “legend” of Mohammad is that he raped captive women (especially if they were Jewish) as a matter of “right.” His followers, to this century, emulate the practice. Thus the spiraling rape statistics in Germany and Sweden, whose governments have, out of altruistic duty, allowed those countries to be swamped beyond control with savages whose sustenance is also subsidized by the subjected populations. ISIS proclaims that if a captive and sex slave Yazidi woman is raped by an ISIS fighter, she automatically becomes a Muslim.
Mā malakat aymānukum ("what your right hands possess", Arabic: ما ملكت أيمانکم) is a reference in the Qur'an to slaves. The phrase occurs several times, and has been variously translated by Western and Islamic scholars to mean the same thing: captive women can be raped according to Sharia.
Surah Al-Muminun (23:6) and Surah Al-Maarij (70:30) both, in identical wording, draw a distinction between spouses and "those whom one's right hands possess" (female slaves), saying (literally, "their spouses or what their right hands possess"), while clarifying that sexual intercourse with either is permissible. The purchase of female slaves for sex was lawful from the perspective of Islamic law, and this was the most common motive for the purchase of slaves throughout Islamic history
Tavakoli explicates Islam:
Fundamentalists view Muhammad as the perfect man. Yet Muhammad led violent followers who raped, enslaved war captives, and murdered unbelievers as part of Islam's program to expand. Today that behavior is emulated by Islamic terrorists in Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mauritania, Nigeria, to name just a few.
Muhammad had several wives, including a slave given to him as a gift. When he was in his fifties, he asked for a friend's six-year-old daughter and consummated the so-called marriage when the child was nine. Although Muhammad criticized corrupt customs of his Arab contemporaries, he had sex with a girl who was too young to be capable of consent; in the West we call this statutory rape. (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234)
Referring to Muhammad's life, fundamentalists allow forced marriages of female children in countries including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, some Gulf States, and Iran.
If fundamentalist Muslim leaders do not understand how flawed this ideology appears to the West, their incomprehension may spring from a fundamentally different view of human rights: To the West, these values are embodied in the Enlightenment -- such as individual freedoms, freedom of thought, disinterested enquiry -- and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – that all people, regardless of race religion or gender, have the right to life, liberty personal security, and freedom from slavery torture, and degrading treatment.
It is those Enlightenment values the Muslim Brotherhood works to denigrate and eradicate in its “civilizational” war against the West. It has allies in dhimmi Western governments in control of a nation’s educational establishment. In the U.S., Britain, Germany, Sweden and other countries children are indoctrinated in the “glories” of Islam, forced to perform the Shahada, prayer, complete with rugs, bowing, and gestures, and to mouth the words that Allah is the greatest, and that Mohammad is his prophet.
Many Reformist Muslims claim they are being unfairly lumped into this extremist crew, but if they are claiming a schism, many they often have not been clear about it….
Reformist Muslims still call themselves Muslims, but there can never be a Quran 2.0. Every word in the Quran is believed to be the word of Allah, similar to the Ten Commandments as the direct word of God; no one is able to say that Allah did not mean what Allah reportedly said. Interpretations, however do differ and since 1948 have apparently caused the deaths of 11,000,000 Muslims at the hands of other Muslims.
So one can imagine what might be in store for non-Muslims.
Islam cannot be “reformed” to coexist with Western society. What divides “fundamentalist” Muslims from the Reformist Muslims is an imaginary rainbow, because Islam cannot be tampered with to make it more amenable to civilized society, not without earning the Reformists death fatwas.
Islam, moreover, seems to have been has been set up to spread it both by violence, "hard jihad," and "soft jihad. " Hard jihad includes terrorism, murder and attempted murder. Soft jihad includes rewriting history as with the UNESCO vote claiming that ancient Biblical monuments such as Rachel's Tomb or the Cave of the Patriarchs are Islamic, when historically Islam did not even exist until the seventh century; migration to widen Islam (hijrah), as we are seeing now in Europe and Turkish threats to flood Germany with migrants; cultural penetration such as promoting Islam in school textbooks or tailoring curricula for "political correctness"; political and educational infiltration, as well as intimidation (soft jihad with the threat of hard jihad just underneath it).
More regrettable is that these are so often done, as at UNESCO, with the help and complicity of the West.
Both hard and soft jihad are how Islam historically has been able to overrun Persia, Turkey, Greece, Southern Spain, Portugal, all of North Africa, and all of Eastern Europe. It is up to us not to let this be done to us again.
Islam has no “extremist” forms. One must ask oneself, from what point in its ideology and practice does it reach an “extremist” apogee? Find a “moderate” form of Islam. You can’t. Islam is radical in every sense of that term. Its origin was brutal and savage and it would cease to be Islam if its advocates surrendered the ambition to make it dominant and abandoned the use of force. There are no “moderate” fundamentalists. Reformist Muslims want to add the frosting and icing of Western civilized societies to Islam to make it palatable to infidel and Muslim alike. But Islam is Islam.
Given the bloody record of Islam over 14 centuries, the “War on Terror” cannot be but the “War on Islam.” To think of the conflict in milder terms is self-delusional and perilous. Islam is nothing if not inhuman. It is a system for dying, it is a system that glorifies death.