Beaten For A Bulge

Who did the police beat? A Man With Downs Syndrome.

"The family is very upset and really shocked, to be honest," attorney Philip Gold said Wednesday. "They can't believe that this could have happened, let alone to their their son who is an innocent, sweet individual with Down syndrome."

Gilberto Powell, 22, was stopped by officers in the area of Southwest 111th Place and Southwest 138th Street around 9:30 p.m. Saturday, according to a Miami-Dade Police report.

The report said officers spotted a bulge in Powell's waist band and when they tried to pat him down, he tried to flee. Police say Powell broke free as officers tried to place him in handcuffs, hitting his forehead on the ground.

Powell hit one of the officers in the chest and continued to struggle until one of the officers "struck [Powell] in the left side of his face with an open hand in an attempt to subdue him," the report said.

After Powell was finally handcuffed and questioned, the officers realized he was "mentally challenged, was not capable of understanding our commands, and that the bulge in his waistband was a colostomy bag," the report said.

What ever happened to the concept of Peace Officer?

It happened to Kelly Thomas too, in Fullerton, Calif. Only he didn't survive. Don't click on the link if gruesome photos make you sick to your stomach. Because the one they have there will make you wonder what kind of animals could do that to a human. It was videoed too. And his last words were a cry for help. "Dad. Dad....."

We have a war going on against Americans in this country. Everyone is under suspicion for contraband. And some folks around here wonder why that war makes me crazy. It makes me crazy because police have an attitude because of that war. And it is not a good attitude.

Look around for the Kelly Thomas video and see if you can stand hearing him call out to his dad for help. I have sons. And it breaks my heart. Unfortunately my heart is not made of stone. Probably a personal defect. Why should I care about a stranger?

Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Deuteronomy 10:19

If Christians celebrated Passover in the Hebrew way (some do) we might see a lot less of this sort of thing. Because we Jews read this verse every year at Passover. And we make it personal - "Because of what God did for me..." Not my ancestors. Me. Personally. He lifted my burdens and made me free.

Time to get back to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus.....

Update: From the The Passover Hagadah

We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and the L-rd, our G-d, took us out from there with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm. If the Holy One, blessed be He, had not taken our fathers out of Egypt, then we, our children and our children's children would have remained enslaved to Pharaoh in Egypt. Even if all of us were wise, all of us understanding, all of us knowing the Torah, we would still be obligated to discuss the exodus from Egypt; and everyone who discusses the exodus from Egypt at length is praiseworthy.

Further:

In every generation a person is obligated to regard himself as if he had come out of Egypt, as it is said: "You shall tell your child on that day, it is because of this that the L-rd did for me when I left Egypt."

The Holy One, blessed be He, redeemed not only our fathers from Egypt, but He redeemed also us with them, as it is said: "It was us that He brought out from there, so that He might bring us to give us the land that He swore to our fathers."

Thus it is our duty to thank, to laud, to praise, to glorify, to exalt, to adore, to bless, to elevate and to honor the One who did all these miracles for our fathers and for us. He took us from slavery to freedom, from sorrow to joy, and from mourning to festivity, and from deep darkness to great light and from bondage to redemption. Let us therefore recite before Him Halleluyah, Praise G-d!

Just reading that has made my tears flow like rain. Because He saw my burden and lifted it. And thus I am obligated to lift the burdens of others.

“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillel

As I have said often, "I'm not much of a Jew." But when He speaks to me I listen. And crazy as this sounds (we live in a Modern Age after all), He has spoken. This will not stand. You hear that all you mofo supporters of this abomination? The Wrath of the Maker is headed your way. For you have been unkind to the stranger. And mistreated the afflicted.

And just to get all ecumenical. (in case there are some Christians still reading):

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40

H/T The Agitator

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Hebrew Etymology

Commenter Randy suggested I do some etymological research. So I did. And found something very interesting.

In 1936, Sara Benetowa, later Known as Sula Benet, an etymologist from the Institute of Anthropological Sciences, in Warsaw wrote a treatise, "Tracing One Word Through Different Languages." This was a study on the word Cannabis, based on a study of the oldest Hebrew texts. Although the word cannabis was thought to be of Scythian origin, Benet's research showed it had an earlier root in the Semitic Languages such as Hebrew. Benet demonstrated that the ancient Hebrew word for Cannabis is Kaneh -Bosem. She also did another study called Early Diffusion and Folk Uses of Hemp. There is a reprint of this in Cannabis and Culture. On page 44, she states, "The sacred character of hemp in biblical times is evident from Exodus 30:23, where Moses was instructed by God to anoint the meeting tent and all of its furnishings with specially prepared oil, containing hemp." On page 41 Sula Benet writes, : In the course of time, the two words kaneh and bosem were fused into one , kanabos or kannabus know to us from the Mishna. According to the Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary, page 607 the Hebrew for hemp is kanabos.

Sara Benetowa discovered that the Kaneh-Bosm or Cannabis is mentioned 5 times in the Old Testament. The first occurrence appears in the Holy Anointing Oil as Calamus, (Exodus 30:23). Sara argued that the translation of Calamus was a mistranslation which occurred in the oldest Bible the “Septuagint” and the mistranslation was copied in later versions.

But what is the effect to the baptism?

You may argue that the Anointing with the cannabis based oil has no redeeming value. I would like to point out that all Orthodox Churches practice the Chrism anointing. What started me into The Fire Baptism and the Lost Sacraments is that not one Church uses the Holy Anointing Oil as described in Exodus 30:23 even with the Calamus translation.

The Bible is very clear that this was the only oil to be used.

A Sarah Benetowa article can also be found at the site. Read the whole thing.

The irony is of course hilarious. Those most identifiably against cannabis tend to be on Christian Right these days.

Update: There has been some controversy in the comments. Here is a video discourse on the latest etymological research on the subject:



Continued here.

Also for your amusement my recent article on the religious revival of the 60s: The 60s Actually Did Work Until Crony Religionism Killed It

And a video from the Christian perspective:



Roger Christie - THC Ministry - Holy Anointing Oil Recipe - video

The Hawai`i Cannabis Ministry

You can help Roger Christie by donating to him directly through the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Please send funds to Roger at the address below - [see the link above for details]

Hey maybe it is time to get back to the Old Time Religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.



“Are you unwilling to be anointed with the Oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.” Theophilus of Antioch (181AD)

From Is it Christ or is it Anti-Christ???

The Holy Anointing Oil of God is described in Exodus 30:23. Take thou also unto thee three principal spices, of liquid Myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet Cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet Calamus (Kaneh Bosem in Hebrew) two hundred and fifty shekels, and of Cassia five hundred shekels after the shekel of the sanctuary, and of oil olive an hin. And thou shalt make it an oil of Holy ointment compound after the art of apothecary: it shall be a Holy anointing oil. Exodus 30:22-25

And:

But as “Christ” means “the anointed” What does “Anti-Christ” mean? “Anti” in Greek means “Opposed to” or “Instead of”. The Anti-Christ would then mean “Opposed to the anointed” or “Instead of the anointed”.

For false Christ's or (false anointed ones) and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect. Matthew 24:24

Today the Roman Catholic Churches, use Pure Olive Oil, sprinkled with powered Balsam, and blessed by a Bishop at lent. Here we find the “instead of anointing”.

The Coptic Orthodox use a Myron oil which consists of over 30 spices. The Myron Oil is based on a tradition that Saint Mark took with him the spices used at Jesus burial to Alexandria. Whether or not this is true is unknown, but here again we have the “Instead of Oil”

There are other Churches that boil down various other configurations of the Holy Oil. Some include wine, salt, and other ingredients, boiled with oil, as the “instead of Holy Oil”.

Most protestant Churches offer no anointing at all. Here we find the “opposed to anointing”.

It appears, that in the Christian World, so preoccupied with calling themselves, Christians or “The Anointed Ones”, we have no place for the “Holy Anointing Oil of God”, as described in the Exodus 30:23

Could it be that the Churches have been deceived, regarding the anointing? If this is so, surely this would have been prophesied.

Further update: In the comments some one said I ought to get over attacking Christians. I said I thought that was a good idea and I would look for some dirt on the Jews in relation to the material at hand.

Here is something I found. I'll look for more. Orthodox Jews run a medical marijuana collective in Berkeley, California and also sell a religiously inspired cannabis cream. Here is the url of the collective: Doc Green's

Not exactly about Jews: Jesus 'healed using cannabis'

Jesus w as almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural texts published this month. The study suggests that Jesus and his disciples used the drug to carry out miraculous healings.

The anointing oil used by Jesus and his disciples contained an ingredient called kaneh-bosem which has since been identified as cannabis extract, according to an article by Chris Bennett in the drugs magazine, High Times, entitled Was Jesus a Stoner? The incense used by Jesus in ceremonies also contained a cannabis extract, suggests Mr Bennett, who quotes scholars to back his claims.

"There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic religion," Carl Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston University said.

Referring to the existence of cannabis in anointing oils used in ceremonies, he added: "Obviously the easy availability and long-established tradition of cannabis in early Judaism _ would inevitably have included it in the [Christian] mixtures."

Mr Bennett suggests those anointed with the oils used by Jesus were "literally drenched in this potent mixture _ Although most modern people choose to smoke or eat pot, when its active ingredients are transferred into an oil-based carrier, it can also be absorbed through the skin".

Quoting the New Testament, Mr Bennett argues that Jesus anointed his disciples with the oil and encouraged them to do the same with other followers. This could have been responsible for healing eye and skin diseases referred to in the Gospels.

"If cannabis was one of the main ingredients of the ancient anointing oil _ and receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ and his followers Christians, then persecuting those who use cannabis could be considered anti-Christ," Mr Bennett concludes.

More etymology by Chris Bennett (mentioned in several of the above videos). I'm still looking for dirt on the Jews.



Part 2 of the Chris Bennett interview

My Hebrew name is Moshe משה (English Moses) often Maish, which would be a nickname. My English name is Michael.

I'm still looking for dirt on the Jews. And all I came up with is the Orthodox guys again.

It’s not an uncommon sight in the East Bay — home of the country’s first cannabis trade school, Oaksterdam University — but an hour later Green is doing something a bit more out of character for the Bay Area: He’s wrapping tefillin and davening mincha, the afternoon prayers.

In Northern California, even the religious Jews light up.

Green, 32, is a founding member of Doc Green’s, a medical marijuana collective established by Orthodox Jews, who, like the late kabbalistic rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, believe that cannabis was one of the ingredients in the holy anointing oil described in the Torah.

I used to wrap tefillin and daven mincha when I was a kid. I may still have the tefillin from my youth around somewhere. I'll have to ask the first mate if she put them somewhere.

Anyway I'm tired of looking for dirt on the Jews. It is hard to find. If anyone has a link I'll add it.

I did find this from Above Top Secret.

Aloha. I just bought a book on the advice of a dear friend. In my opinion, it will help to open the big door of cannabis prohibition, once and for all.

The book is Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary by Hayim Baltsan published in 1992. The ISBN number is 0-671-88991-5. It cost me $18.00 plus tax.

On page 650 there is the definition of 'marijuana'. It says 'kanabos'. The Hebrew word for it is there for all to see.

It's the SAME WORD that appears for the definition of 'hemp' in the Ben-Yehuda Hebrew-English Dictionary on page 140. This book cost me $7.00 plus tax.

Together, these dictionaries help to prove that cannabis - kanebosm - kanabos - is the missing ingredient in the holy anointing oil of Moses and the Christening oil of Jesus.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Brain Study - Childhood Sexual Abuse Linked To Drug Use

The physiological link between sexual abuse and drug use has tentatively been found.

It has long been widely accepted that early childhood sexual abuse can predispose an individual to later substance abuse. But how?

Now, a new study combining brain imaging with information gathered from a questionnaire assessing symptoms of subjective distress and discomfort provides evidence of a neuroanatomical mechanism by which early childhood trauma could lead to drug abuse or other behavioral problems.

In the study, published in the January [2002] issue of Psychoneuroendocrinology, Carl Anderson, PhD., and colleagues at McLean Hospital, in Belmont, Mass., found that repeated sexual abuse in childhood may be correlated with changes in blood flow and function in a key region of the cerebellum, known as the cerebellar vermis.

At the same time, they found that those changes were significantly related to scores on a questionnaire used to rate symptoms of irritability in the limbic system of the brain, known to be involved in regulation of emotions, attention, and judgment.

This study was published in January 2002, so the information has been available for about ten years. Funny that it is not common knowledge by now.

The study was small (24 people total - 8 abused kids and 16 controls) so the findings are not definitive. But they correlate well with the findings of Dr. Lonnie Shavelson detailed in his book Heroin. And what did Dr. Shavelson find?

About 70% of female heroin users were sexually abused as children.

Is it possible to get the government to stop further abusing abused kids? Or is a modicum of morality and human kindness too much to ask from our government? Heck is it too much to ask from the people supporting Drug Prohibition? In my experience so far the answer is YES. It is too much to ask from them.

Say. Isn't America supposed to be a Christian Country? Yes it is. In the same way the Inquisition was a Christian operation. Or the way Martin Luther hated Jews. Ya gotta love Christian Morality. And them Christians are so proud of it. Isn't it time for another Reformation or something? Could we please avoid the Jew hatred this time? How about ending all hatred? You know "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Pardon me but isn't that a Jewish concept? Yes it is.

OTOH some Christians get it.

H/T Drug Policy Forum Of Texas

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Christian Sharia

I was reading and commenting over at Belmont Club and came across a very interesting comment.

30: Sodomites took their case to the federal level because they had no chance of winning at the local level. Sodomites have never won a vote on the legality of their amoral, deviant, anti-social desires. NEVER will. Normal people understand that it is a sick, twisted practice that for the last few thousand years has been illegal (proscribed). The current relaxing of social mores is temporary.

Homosexuals are normal people. Ideology and party affiliation, in a perfect world, would have no correlation with sexual orientation. In the real world, misguided Christians who believe there should be a perfect correlation between sin and the transgression of human law (which is no different from Sharia) drive people like Rachel Maddow right into the arms of the Left, because they feel they have no choice.

I do believe Drug Prohibition is going to smack the Right in this election. Another problem for the "our moral code should be THE legal code" folks.

Social Movement

Jim Hoft has a nice article up about why the Norway shooter was not a Christian. And of course a load of commenters chimed in about Christian compassion.

I will believe in Christian compassion when I see a call for an end to the pogrom on heroin users.

Did you know that about 70% of female heroin users were sexually abused children? (See Dr. Lonnie Shavelson’s book “Heroin”) And of course sexually abused children provide a cohort ready for prostitution.

So where is the compassion? Instead of punishing these people we should be helping them. We should be focusing on child abuse. I don’t see it. Oh. There are individual cases. But where is the social movement? I don’t see it.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

I'm A Little Late On This

But it was too funny to pass up.

They Kill Christians Don't They?

So far no Jews have been implicated. It looks like another job of Islam Inc.

JOS, Nigeria — Angry Muslim youths set a church filled with worshippers ablaze in northern Nigeria, starting a riot that killed at least 27 people and wounded more than 300 others in the latest religious violence in the region, officials said Monday.

About 5,000 people lost their homes as rioters also burned mosques and homes in Jos, a city that saw more than 300 residents killed during a similar uprising in 2008, said local Red Cross official Auwal Muhammad Madobi. He said he had no information about deaths. Police officials declined to offer a count of the dead.

Sani Mudi, a spokesman for the local imam, said 22 people died Sunday after rioters set fire to a Catholic church, starting a daylong wave of violence between Christians and Muslims. Five others died Monday from their wounds, and police and soldiers set up numerous road blocks throughout Jos.

Now here is the really good part of the story.

The rioting began Sunday, when the youths attacked a church, said Gregory Yenlong, a state government spokesman. Yenlong said he didn't know why the young men set the blaze.

Some of the locals seem to have some ideas though.

Musa Pam, secretary of a local Christian elders forum, issued a statement Monday claiming the Muslim youths picked Sunday to launch their attack because they knew Christians would be worshipping at church. He asked the police to bring the killers to justice, because Christians were being attacked without cause.

I think the cause might have been that they were Christians. Of course killing Jews would have been better but Nigeria is not a rich country and the locals have to work with local materials.

In any case the idea that Islam has bloody borders is well known. You can find the bloody borders of Islam on this map. And the countries of Africa on this map.

Do some Muslims live in peace with their neighbors? Of course. But some are always looking for a fight and Islam seems to give them an excuse.

H/T Israpundit

Where Do These Kids Come From?

I was reading a blog by some college kids, the Undercurrent, that looks at the contradictions of the present Republican coalition.

In the aftermath of the substantial Democratic victory in last November’s election, Republicans nationwide are reported to be doing a great deal of “soul searching.” Indeed they should. After all, times are not looking good for the Republican Party. Former President Bush left office with record-low support, and both houses of Congress, along with the White House, are now solidly Democratic. Michael Steele, a former lieutenant governor and recently elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, attributed the Republican loss in the last election to a lack of understanding of what the party stood for. In his words, “We didn’t have anything to say to the American people other than, ‘We’re not Democrats.’”

Mr. Steele was not being entirely correct. What he should have said is that the Republicans want to go slowly towards government control of the economy and the Democrats want to go fast.

Saxby Chambliss, the newly re-elected Republican senator from Georgia, has echoed Steele, calling on the party to return to its principles.

But what principles are those? Historically, the political philosophy of the Republican Party has been an amalgam of advocacy for small government and capitalism, combined with support for religion and traditional values. The more capitalist element of the party tends to concern itself primarily with economic policy, traditionally supporting less government spending, lower taxes and deregulation. By contrast, the religionist element of the party tends to focus on social policy.

Ah. Yes. Social policy. Isn't social the root of socialism. Yes it is. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not against social relations. I'm against them at the point of a government gun. What I call moral socialism.

Which brings us to the inherent contradictions between the two elements of the party.

This clash in policy positions is the result of two distinct sets of political principles. In the past, both sides coexisted in an uneasy alliance, but over time the disagreements between them have become too great to reconcile. This is unsurprising: the two sets of political principles are grounded in two opposing ethical systems.

Capitalism upholds each individual’s right to exist for his own sake, independent from any group. Its moral foundation is rational self-interest. According to this morality, the good is the pursuit of one’s own happiness. Religion, on the other hand, implies a system where each individual exists to serve the group or greater good. Christian tradition is rife with admonishments against selfishness: “we are our brother’s keepers” is an obvious example. This sentiment represents the moral code of altruism, which holds fulfilling the needs of others as a moral imperative. The welfare state is a natural extension of this tenet. People need money, education, sanitation, transportation, etc. Under a religious (i.e. altruistic) morality, we are obligated to satisfy these needs for those unwilling or unable to do so themselves.

How can one reconcile these opposing beliefs? How can one unite the religious demand to selflessly help the needy through welfare state agencies (such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) with the capitalist insistence that an individual’s primary responsibility is achieving his own well-being? Where is the compromise between the religionist’s call to force children to pray in school and the capitalist’s call to maintain a barrier between church and state? How can one bring together the principle that a woman’s life is her own (the morality of rational self-interest), with the edict that a woman has a duty to protect the growth of an embryo (the morality of religion)?

The answer is that one can’t. There is no way to reconcile an individualistic, self-interested morality and an altruistic morality of religious duties. Politically, this means there is no way to support both capitalist and religious policies. “The party of principle,” as the GOP often calls itself, is currently governed by two sets of principles that fundamentally contradict one another.

I think the idea Jesus had about the separation of private morality from governance is the correct guiding principle. We seem to have a lot of Christians in America and very few followers of Jesus. I think Jesus said render unto Cesar. I don't recall him saying become Cesar. Did you know that the word czar comes from the word Cesar? And yet Bill Bennett our first Drug Czar is supposed to be a hell of a Christian. In fact he wrote a book, The BOOK OF VIRTUES, explaining how we can become more virtuous. I wonder if becoming a dictator (Cesar) is what he had in mind?

The first years of President Obama’s administration provide the Republican Party with an opportunity to redefine itself. To do so, Republicans first need to decide what they stand for. They can become the party that promotes individual rights, small government, and capitalism, or they can become an ever more theocratic, intrusive, and socialist party.

So even the author of this article is calling the Christianist elements of the party socialist. Good. It is catching on.

Now do I want to drive the Christianists out of the party? Of course not. I'd like to see them welcomed as long as they are willing to give up their moral socialism. And let me add that there is nothing wrong with socialism as long as people who want to practice it do it on their own dime. What I object to is having it enforced with government guns.

In any case it may not matter what I think should be done. The moral socialist in the Republican Party are a dying breed. I wish them well in their next life as long as they leave me alone in this one. Which is why I'm a member of the leave us alone coalition. And we even have our own flag too.
A word to the wise ought to be sufficient. Generally it isn't though. More through lack of wisdom than a lack of words. As the old saying goes "experience is a hard teacher, some men will have no other."

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Why Is Mike Huckabee A Republican?

The relevant bit is about 9 minutes into the video.

You can see the rest of the videos at Jonah

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Why Did Social Conservatives Ally With Progressives?

Why Did Social Conservative Ally With Progressives?

Please discuss in the comments.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

No Word For Liberty

America since its founding has had an interest in the Middle East says Michael Oren:

The stalled U.S. mission in Iraq has prompted calls for a return to "realism" in American foreign policy. Instead of striving for freedom and national cohesion in the Middle East, realists argue that the U.S. should negotiate with Syria and Iran and abandon the dream of remaking the region on a democratic, federated model. Realists claim that replacing a faith-based policy with an agenda based solely on economic and strategic interests will return the United States to its traditional posture in the Middle East.

In fact, long before the rise of radical Islam and even the discovery of oil, Americans worked to bring liberty and human rights to the Middle East. For well over 200 years, U.S. citizens have sought to endow Middle Eastern peoples with the same inalienable liberties Americans enjoy at home.

The absence of basic freedoms in the Middle East was well known to the founding fathers. In contrast to the young republic, observed John Adams, the ancient dynasties of the Middle East were rife with "avarice and fear," ruled by despots who treated their subjects like "so many caterpillars upon an apple tree." Thomas Jefferson believed the U.S. could never rely on a peace treaty with any Middle Eastern state, whose word was only as good as the life of its ruler. The prevalence of tyranny in the region was noted by Jefferson's friend, John Ledyard, who in 1788 became the first American to explore the Middle East. "It is singular," he wrote, "the Arab language has no word for 'liberty.' "

Islam is probably in part a codification of that attitude. Liberty would imply a place for cause and effect. Instead for a long time its path was determined by the idea of Insha'Allah - if God wills it.

Such a concept explains why science has never taken off in the Middle East. It explains why there is still so little science in the Middle east.

The more sordid the Islamic present seems, the more we are told of the glories of the Islamic past. And the most glorious of the glories of Islam, the most enlightened of its enlightenments, are the "Islamic science" and "Islamic philosophy" of the Golden Age.

So what does Islamic law say about this science and this philosophy? According to Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368), they are unlawful, serious affronts to Islam, a form of apostasy. Apologists for Islam in the West brag about the "Islamic science" and "Islamic philosophy" that their accomplices in the Islamic world condemn.

The kinds of unlawful knowledge include philosophy and the sciences of the materialists. Why are they unlawful? Because anything that is a means to create doubts is unlawful. This was the position of the Catholic Church for a long time.

The Jews of course have had no problem with doubts. Their answer was always debate and reason. Put so well by a very modern Jewish scholar Milton Friedman "You cannot be sure you are right unless you understand the arguments against your views better than your opponents do." Jews as part of their religious training are taught to take any side of any question and argue it to the best of their ability. Which may explain why there are so many Jewish lawyers.

The term "sciences of the materialists" requires explanation. It does not mean, as one might think, science that is based on the assumption that matter (and energy) is the sole constituent of the universe. Jews and Christians might agree that such "sciences of the materialists," if not "unlawful," at least present a truncated view of reality, omitting as they do the spiritual realm. It means, rather, according to the commentary of Reliance of the Traveller, the "conviction of materialists that things in themselves or by their own nature have a causal influence independent of the will of Allah. To believe this is unbelief that puts one beyond the pale of Islam."

At issue here is not the existence of the spiritual realm, but the condemnation by al-Ghazali in The Incoherence of the Philosophers of "the judgment of the philosophers," first of all Avicenna,

"that the connection that is observed to exist between causes and effects is a necessary relation, and that there is no capability or possibility of bringing the cause into existence without the effect, nor the effect without the cause."

Causes and effects are inadmissible, according to al-Ghazali, because causes limit the absolute freedom of Allah to bring about whatever events he wills. Effects are brought about, not by causes, but by the direct will of Allah.

We see then that the condemnation of "the sciences of the materialists" and the condemnation of philosophy are really the same condemnation and that the condemnation of "the sciences of the materialists" is a condemnation of far more than secular science, extending as it does to any analysis of causes and effects, whether materialist or not. It extends even to any discussion of the nature of any object, whether material or spiritual, because the nature of an object conditions how it affects and is affected by other objects. So in the end the condemnation of "the sciences of the materialists" is a condemnation of any effort to understand anything.

I wonder how the modern Islamic scholars such as these folks explain the existance of cell phones? They must have some kind of pretzel logic to come to grips with that. No doubt Occam's Razor is an unknown concept. Since Occam was a Franciscan friar such a concept would have to be banned if its origin was known.

Averroes replied to The Incoherence of the Philosophers in The Incoherence of the Incoherence, so al-Ghazali, whose views inform Reliance of the Traveller in particular and mainstream Islam in general, attacked Avicenna, one of the two greatest of the "Islamic philosophers," who was defended by the other, Averroes.

And we are told by the entire decrepit establishment that we should honor the "Islamic philosophy" of the Golden Age!

There is, however, a still closer connection between the philosophy and "the sciences of the materialists" declared unlawful by Reliance of the Traveller. Without a notion of cause and effect, science is impossible, and the acceptance by Islam of al-Ghazali's views meant that science in the Islamic world could develop only in opposition to a fundamental tenet of Islam.

If the true cause of events is the will of Allah, and if the will of Allah is inscrutable, then the causes of events are inscrutable and science a vain pursuit. The issue is ultimately whether the universe and its creator are in any way intelligible. The West, with its traditions of natural law and natural theology, agrees for the most part that the universe is astonishingly intelligible and God somewhat so. Islam, at least at its most rigorous, denies any intelligibility whatsoever to either.

The seriousness of the condemnation of philosophy and science by Reliance of the Traveller can be seen in its list of "Acts That Entail Leaving Islam." Belief "that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah" is apostasy.

In contrast, the Jewish and Christian worlds have been informed by the notion of secondary causes propounded by Moses Maimonides and Saint Thomas Aquinas. God works, at least most of the time, through the laws of nature, via causes. Just as our wills can be both free and subject to God, and divine foreknowledge does not foreclose the contingency of earthly events, God and nature cooperate in the production of effects.

So what does modern Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan have to say about Islam and science?

In the run-up to Pope Benedict's current visit to Turkey, TIME Magazine opened its pages to Tariq Ramadan, Europe's favorite Islamist and perhaps the most influential Muslim figure in the West today. Ramadan chided the Pope and Europe for ignoring the positive contributions of Islam to the development of rational thought in the West.

Writing in response to Benedict's now-famous Regensburg speech (which prompted outrage in the Muslim world) and the Pope's first visit to a predominantly Muslim country, Ramadan's article, "And He's Still in the Dark", offers a back-handed compliment to Benedict's attempt at dialogue with Muslims, warning that the Pope's efforts actually threatens the West, and directs Muslims in the West to their point of apologetic attack:

As I have written before, this profoundly European Pope is inviting the people of his continent to become aware of the central, inescapable character of Christianity within their identity, or risk losing it. That may be a legitimate goal, but Benedict's narrow definition of European identity is deeply troubling and potentially dangerous. This is what Muslims must respond to: the tendency of Westerners to ignore the critical role that Muslims played in the development of Western thought. Those who "forget" the decisive contributions of rationalist Muslim thinkers like al-Farabi (10th century), Avicenna (11th century), Averroes (12th century), al-Ghazali (12th century), Ash-Shatibi (13th century) and Ibn Khaldun (14th century) are reconstructing a Europe that is not only an illusion but also self-deceptive about its past.

But in fact, it is Ramadan who is operating under an illusion and is self-deceived about Islam's supposed prominent role in shaping the rationalist tradition of Christendom. As an article ("The Pope and the Prophet") by Robert Reilly in the current issue of Crisis Magazine ably notes, Western Christianity's rational tradition developed in the Medieval era precisely as a result of the outright rejection of the irrationalism inherent in Islamic philosophy, not the embracing of it.

So when did Islam go wrong? It went wrong almost from the beginning.

Any hope of the development of a rational tradition within Islam was dashed with the rise of Caliph Ja'afar al-Mutawakkil (847-861). Prior to al-Mutawakkil's rule, a rationalist philosophy had begun to develop under the Mu'tazilite school of interpretation, which advocated for a created, as opposed to an uncreated, Quran. But Caliph al-Mutawakkil condemned the Mu'tazilite school, which opened the door for the rival Ash'arite interpretation, founded by al-Ash'ari (d. 935), to eventually take preeminence within Sunni Islam - a position of dominance it has retained over the centuries. By 1200 A.D., any hope of recovering a semblance of rational Islamic philosophy was seemingly forever lost.

It was the work of the very Islamic philosophers that Ramadan cites that prompted Europe Christian thinkers to make a break with their Muslim counterparts. Historically, the views of the Ash'arite school were rooted in the theological dogma of "volunteerism", which holds that rather than created objects having inherent existence, Allah constantly recreates each atom anew at every moment according to his arbitrary will. This, of course, undermines the basis for what Westerners understand as natural laws.

From volunteerism sprung another irrational idea amongst Muslim thinkers - occasionalism - that further prevented the development of rationalism within the Islamic tradition. Occasionalism is the belief that in the natural world, what is perceived as cause and effect between objects is mere appearance, not reality. Instead, only Allah truly acts with real effect; all seemingly natural observances of causation are merely manifestations of Allah's habits, for Allah simultaneously creates both the cause and the effect according to his arbitrary will. This view is best expressed by one of the Islamic philosophers cited by Ramadan, al-Ghazali (1059-1111), in his book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers.

So that takes us back to the beginning of this piece.

This has had a very profound effect on the idea of personal responsibility. It would seem that Islam embraces it in some respects (say laws against theft and murder) and denies it in others.

Using al-Ghazali's own analogy of decapitation, according to the occasionalist view, when a sword struck off a person's head causing death, it only merely appeared that the sword was the cause of the decapitation: the real and primary cause of the decapitation and the death was the will of Allah, not the sword. The sword, in fact, played no part at all. Had Allah willed it so, the sword could have cut through the neck without decapitation or death. To believe otherwise, Islamic occasionalism held, would be a limitation of the omnipotence of Allah. As with volunteerism, the consequences of occasionalism had catastrophic effects for the development of empirical science in the Islamic world.

Occasionalism was rigorously opposed by the two great philosophers of Medieval Europe, Albert Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, along with the great medieval Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), who lived and wrote in Muslim-occupied Spain. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) also addressed the threat posed by Islamic occasionalism by affirming the ancient Christian truth that God created the universe ex nihilo (from nothing). This prevented the volunteerist view from gaining ground in the West, and thus occasionalism, merely by stating that God had actually created, and that objects in the natural world created by God have an actual inherent existence and do not need to be constantly recreated.

Other problems developed within Islamic philosophy which prevented the rise of rationalism. Perhaps the most notable following volunteerism and occasionalism is the "dual-truth" theory advanced by Averroes, who with Avicenna is considered one of the two most important Islamic philosophers in history.

In an attempt to navigate between faith and rationality, Averroes argued that what may be true in the realm of religion may be contrary to what is true in nature. Thus, the Quranic maxim, "there is no compulsion in religion," (Sura 2:256) can be entirely true from a religious sense; but in the real world and in the course of jihad, compulsion may not only be required, but entirely justifiable. The dual-truth theory was vigorously rejected by Aquinas, and eventually both Roman Catholic, and later, Protestant theology acknowledged both the authoritative nature and the necessary agreement between special revelation (Scripture) and general revelation (nature).

Aquinas also refuted Averroes on his denial of the personal element to the human soul in the classic treatise, De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas. The implication of Averroes' belief was an ultimate denial of the individual and the rejection of personal immortality - an inseparable component to historic Christian theology.

So in our effort to reform the Middle East and to bring democratic ideals to them we are going to have to start at the very foundation. Insha'Allah will have to be replaced with cause and effect.

That is going to be a tough one.

H/T Kesher Talk and reader linearthinker

Cross Posted at Classical Values