Islam Palestinian Authority Newspaper: Freemasons Behind Sept. 11 Attacks

[Tejwant Singh]

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/2...freemasons-behind-sept-11-attacks/#more-62034

Palestinian Authority Newspaper: Freemasons Behind Sept. 11 Attacks

March 23, 2013
-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

Al-Hayat al-Jadida, the official daily newspaper of the Palestinian Authority, published an Op-ed by Hassan Ouda Abu Zaher. The Op-ed states: “to the lie about Al-Qaeda and the Sept. 11 events, which asserted that Muslim terrorists committed it, and that it was not an internal American action by the Freemasons.” While there are many conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks, there are usually relegated to fringe websites. Unsurprisingly, no evidence is presented to support such a fanciful claim.

This is Islamic lunacy and should be opposed by all rational human beings. That this lunacy is supported by the Palestinian Authority indicates that Palestinians believe these claims.

This degree of credulousness is not unexpected when people are raised from infancy to believe nonsense, such as Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer wrote on this subject in the 19th century:

If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one’s own existence.

A Sophisticated Islamic Theologian™ might assert that no true Muslim would have committed the attacks on Sept. 11, in contradiction to the available evidence, including the admission by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. However, this would be an example of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy where “an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing.”

James Madison wrote of the importance of a “perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters” in his letter to Edward Livingston in 1822. While Madison’s “perfect separation” is under constant attack, we need not look far to see the effect of ignoring his wisdom

 

[spnadmin]

I like this article for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the explanation of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Members of almost any religion might be susceptible to using the No True Scotsman fallacy. When I come across a No True Sikh example on the Internet, in the media, it saddens me that it is used to absolve the "true believers," from moral accountability for their illegal actions: such as causing riots and disturbances in and outside of gurdwaras for real and imagined transgressions. Just as Islamists reject any moral responsibility for terrorism.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

Real-World Examples

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

Sikh example: No True Sikh would admit katha of Professor Darshan Singh in gurdwara. (Implication: Calling for a disturbance outside a gurdwara, even leading to bodily injury and police intervention, is therefore justified on the part of "true Sikhs" who are defending Sikhism from "false Sikhs.") Their opinion is infallible. Those "false Sikhs" were never believing Sikhs to begin with.


How does anyone defend against this No True style of accusation? Any "No True ..... " stops debate and discussion dead in its tracks. A variety of opinions cannot be presented nor taken seriously by debaters who are serious about the debate. Obstacles to discussion are obstacles to learning which are obstacles to bibek. Thanks Tejwant ji.