There are also sects of Buddhism that advocate torture, execution and public humiliation (The former Tibetan ruling class springing firmly to mind). Sadly it seems even the most peaceful of philosophies can still be trumped by psychotic self righteousness & mindless tradition .

I'm not aware of any specific Sufi sects having executed or tortured people for blasphemy, adultery etc. but I fear such groups likely exist somewhere if one were to go looking for them.

In general I have a healthy degree of respect for "Sufism" because it follows the same kind of esoteric approach to religion/spirituality/knowledge as it's western (Gnostic) and far eastern (Tao, Hindu*, Buddhist etc.) counterparts.

Very roughly "Esoteric religion" is based around looking inwards for knowledge and lends itself naturally to scientific enquiry, considered ethics, critical thinking etc.
When they speak of a higher power it is almost always in terms of something fundamentally connected to and embodied by yourself.
They almost never suggest one need feel threatened by divine judgement, or that some should be privileged over others (*hence the Hindu caste system being not being truly esoteric)

"Exoteric religion" (most of Islam, Judaism, Christianity etc.) is by contrast based around looking outside oneself for knowledge. Truth is revealed by outside agents, divinity and true power always lie outside of oneself. etc. etc. (I'm sure I don't need to further elucidate the negative qualities of such belief systems )


In truth all of the major denominations appear to have at least some some esoteric and exoteric variations even if most fall mostly into one or the other. There are bad Buddhists & Gnostics and there are good Muslims and Christians the only difference really is whether or not they are genuinely applying their own minds and judgement, or hopelessly enslaved to another's.
Or in "someone" else's terms Logos and Mythos.

Back on topic: Bill Maher is Mythos masquerading as Logos.

I'll never believe that Sufis condone a death penalty for converting away from Islam, because I've been a Sufi for 30 years and there is not a shred of evidence, at least in western Sufism, of any such belief.

Also, Greenwald makes sweeping generalizations himself. I don't like Bill Maher, but he made far more sense here than usual.

Do you know what the Sufi positions on blasphemy and converting away from the faith are? I'm guessing it's very likely to be the death sentence position. It's disheartening looking across at Islam and trying to look for the moderates and discovering just how many claim moderate status while promoting the death sentence for blasphemy.

While Maher often does say things I agree with, he is in general a bit of a douche nozzle and very prone to I'll informed sweeping judgements that make him look rather silly (^ like this).

As far as what Mr. Greenwald said my response would be in so many words: "K'IN AYE DUDE!!" though if anything he doesn't go far enough.

The hegemony is subject to no boundaries, even those nations which actively reject it's institutions (Global market) are still bound and defined by it's existence so long as they share the same small patch of universe.

Wars exist to make money, in this day and age more than perhaps ever before. Every G.I. wounded, every round spent, every wound sutured, every school bombed.....someone in the club makes a profit..................

No matter how just & worthy your cause or evil your enemy, so long as one of these fuckers is bankrolling it, or their companies supplying it, you will loose in the long run. Every. Single. Time.

Unless your war is against the market and excessive privilege/wealth itself, your just screwing the rest of us over. I have big problems with Suni and Shi'ite Islam (the Sufi's seem ok) but blowing them up is very unlikely to improve the situation for anyone, doubly so at the end of a Lockheed-Martin missile!

Your sentiments are indeed shared by idealists like myself concerning the integrity and commensurate salaries expected for an elite force of Jesus' with badges. Dream the dream.

Law enforcement is corrupt to the core in the United States. If you join a force with the patience of Job, the benevolent soul of a Sufi master, and the mettle of Bonaparte, you will at some point, in order to keep your job, have to compromise core values and ethics over job requirements. Cameras keep them in check somewhat, but they are bound by association to allow for visits to the dark side for clarity: Law works to maintain control of more than the peace, and to an advantage for a select select few.

Infowars, as hokey a format and as ranting as it's host, represents a healthy and expected reaction/response to the criminal an sociopathic mechanisms of an increasingly non-linear world, and showcases some of the assholes that make life for our miserable asses harder than it should be.

Alex Jones needs a new fucking larynx, listening to his voice is like dragging chains across my cerebral cortex!

ecstatic states. focus. the unwobbling pivot.

This sufi dancer is known as a Whirling Dervish, and this dance is a form of dhikr (or remembrance of God) among a Persian Sufi order known as the Mevlevi. They are followers of Rumi, a 13th-century poet and among one of my favorite poets of all time.

>> ^Stormsinger:

How can he -not- fall over?

@hpqp

I'm sorry you feel enraged. That wasn't the purpose of my post at all. As I tried to state clearly in the original post, I wanted to tell you my opinion on the issue. That's all. I wasn't trying to convince you I was right because honestly I don't think I could every provide you with enough evidence to change your mind. All I can do is tell you why I listen to the same things Harris says and see a different picture being painted than you do.

The underlined part is, I think, where our disagreement comes from. You seem to believe that everyone must see things in one way. For example, you keep citing the Koran as evidence of Islam's evil. My response to that is the same as Antonio Scalia's recent response in the Supreme Court ruling that allows video games to be covered under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution: "All literature is essentially interactive." In other words, all literature is interpreted by its readers. Whatever intent writers may have had when penning a work, once it is out of their hands and is distributed, that message is no longer the only valid interpretation. This is especially true for a work of literature whose author has been dead for over 1000 years.

There is not--there cannot be--one interpretation of Islam. Islam is a religion practiced by 1.5 billion people around the world in over 232 countries and territories. These people come from wildly different socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicity, nationalities, education levels, and so forth. Even a cursory glance at the statistics hints at what an investigation of how Islam is practiced around the world makes clear--Islam as a religion is realized in the world very differently by people depending on a huge variety of factors including (but not limited to) local tradition, history, the socio-economic status of the practitioners, etc. They may agree with other practitioners around the world on some basic facts (Allah is the one true God, Mohommand was God's prophet) but they disagree on a great many other things. Ironically Sam Harris himself glaringly points out this disagreement in his own talks--for example when he states that 1/3 of British Muslims want to live under Sharia law... which necessarily implies that 2/3 of British Muslims don't.

So we have the “teachings” of Islam (as codified in the Koran, Hadith, and Sufi texts), we also have the widely differing interpretation and actualization of those teachings, and we also have the people (who may—as in the case of Al-Queda terrorists—have ambitions far beyond simply being a Muslim who follows the teachings as best as possible) who are doing the interpreting and actualization. Adding to the complexity is the transformation of Islamic ideas into a political ideology.

So when Sam Harris wants to criticize Islam, one of the first questions I have for him is... which one? Yet he (and you) seem to be insisting that there is only one proper way to read the Koran--only one possible way to interpret it that represents all of Islam. I find that fascinating because that is exactly the same view that fundamentalists have. The fact that millions of Muslims and non-Muslims alike--from all backgrounds including laypeople, theologians, and scholars--have widely different views about how to interpret and actualize what is written in the Koran and Hadiths demonstrates to me that this view--this fundamentalist view that Harris (and you) seem to embrace--is completely incorrect.

No, the Koran is not "pretty clear" at all. There are multiple differing translations of the Koran. There are multiple differing interpretations of those translations. And there are multiple ways in which Islam is realized in the world (radical fundamentalism, Sufism, etc.). Unlike Christianity, which gives us no end of labels for the differing interpretations of the Bible and how Christianity should be practiced (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Unitarian, Mormon, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, and so on...) Islam does not have nearly as many labels for its differing interpretations. But those differing interpretations quite clearly exist. Even if such labels existed for Islam, we know from Christianity that within a similar group of Christians (Unitarians for instance) there is even further differentiation and interpretation between different regions, churches, and even individuals in beliefs and practices.

So, in short, to answer your question about why I don't read Harris and agree with what he say: I think the fundamental premise of his argument is wrong. His argument against "Islam" breaks down completely if he acknowledges that there can be multiple interpretations of the Koran. The fact that he is an extremely well-educated man who refuses to admit that these differing interpretations even exist hurts his credibility in my eyes even further. I hope that makes my position clear.

Thanks for reading my long-winded posts. And just to reiterate, I'm seriously not trying to convince you of anything at this point. I'm stating my opinion on the topic. That's all.

P.S. I apologize for assuming you were a guy. Because we kept bumping into each other in the same vids, I figured we had similar video preferences. I guess I figured it was more likely a guy would be interested in those vids than a girl. My mistake.

P.S. 2 Could you please, please, please, please, PLEASE, answer the question that I've been asking you across two threads and several comments now? What's Harris's/your desired goal? What's the endgame? What are you both hoping to achieve with all of this?

"The pro-Taliban group — known as the Tehrik Nifaz-e-Shariat Mohammedi, or the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Law — is led by Sufi Muhammad, who Pakistan freed from custody last year after he renounced violence.

Muhammad is the father-in-law of Maulana Fazlullah, the leader of the Swat Taliban. Muhammad, who has long agitated for Islamic law in the region, said that after the formal announcement he will go to Swat and ask Fazlullah and his men to lay down their arms."

Swat Taliban has said that they would lay down their arms if Islamic law is implemented in their regions. They would respect government control in the region as well. This is politicking to try and defuse the situation instead of continuous warfare. However I don't think its sustainable because it shows appeasement and not all forces would be willing to abide to this. At least not as far as I believe.

----------
I wouldn't necessarily blame this squarely on Bush, the Great Game in Afghanistan has been waged ever since the collapse of the Afghan government and the incursion of Soviet forces. The parties involved ranged from the CIA, the ISI, the Saudi Wahhabists, Iran and individual non allied forces from within Afghanistan and the surrounding Central Asian States.

The CIA pulled out once the Soviet forces collapsed, they had no end game for Afghanistan and thus stopped their activities there. However the CIA had used the ISI's extensive network in Afghanistan to achieve their aims of supporting the Mujaheddin. Once the nation splintered and several forces started fighting for control, the Taliban emerged and started a successful campaign against other forces, they were sponsored by the ISI and Saudi Wahhabists, many fighters came from the border region madrases that advocated religious war to implement extremist Islam in Afghanistan.

The ISI basically wanted to create a Pushtun government in Afghanistan that they would influence. However the Taliban didn't basically roll over and abide for anyone. Instead they started to charge the ISI large fees for transportation to Central Asian States, remember this is a valuable trade route it lies at the center between South East Asia and Central Asian States, war over the years meant the routes were unsafe.

The Taliban always wanted to be considered a legitimate government but were only ever recognized fully by Pakistan, their stringent rule, public executions and support and keeping of Osama Bin Laden was contrary to Western wishes. They went on to also destroy the large drug trade in Afghanistan, opium, heroine and hashish crops were wiped out.

Then 9/11 occurred and we all know what happened then.

However I believe in the ensuing war Taliban forces started to seep back into Pakistan and start to take over large swathes of land knowing that the sophisticated NATO and American forces have no legitimate power to confront them there. Creating a base from which to launch more attacks into Afghanistan and solidifying their own control in the FATA and influencing NWFT forces.

It's a classic case of blow back.

One of the leaders of the Pakistani Taliban is Sufi Muhammad. He was jailed in 2001, but released in 2008 after promising not to return to the organisation. There must be something more to this story. If anyone has any additional information I'd be very interested in hearing it (looking your way, Farhad...)

is islam the "largest single faith in the world?"

i thought it was still christianity... and by a comfortable margin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

or is the statement based on sub-dividing christianity by denomination, but considering all shi'as, sunnis, kharijites, sufis, etc, inclusively?

do we ever see videos that are openly scornful of christianity? misrepresentful? hateful?

thicker skins may be the only solution

I was curious when I started watching this whether Bill would have anything to say about Rumi and Sufi. Except for a 1-second clip of sped-up whirling dervishes, there's not even a whiff.

I think Bill might even approve of it, since he clearly states at the beginning that he understands people's need to have a religion, and that's it's only privilege of the privileged to choose not to have a religion. He's obviously aware of Sufi. Wonder why he didn't mention it.

Or Buddhism, for that matter, which is similar to Sufi in a lot of ways that Bill singled out as important.

And for future Islam invocations, gwaan's intent for the old collective was painfully clear:

"This collective is dedicated to celebrating the rich tapestry of Islamic culture - from the Moorish heritage of Andalusia to the Sufi traditions of China. It is a place for celebrating the languages, cultures, traditions, musics, and arts of all Islamic peoples. It hopes to show the other side of Islamic countries like Iran, Palestine, Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia - the side rarely shown by Western media. It also aims to dispel the oft-repeated myth of a 'clash of civilizations' and expose those in politics and media who cultivate this myth in order to achieve certain political objectives. Finally, it is a place for discussing the key theological, social, and political issues which dominate the Islamic world: Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, US foreign policy, British foreign policy, imperialism, democracy, sectarianism, 'terrorism', oil, the Islamic state, Islamic law - interpretation and legal authority, women's rights, minorities' rights, Islamic identity in the West, the public image of Islam, the future of Islam.

From time to time I'll post some important news stories from/concerning the Islamic world which will appear in the comments section of the collective."


I miss gwaan. I miss me.

Breath, read my comment again. Relax.

I'll be the first to admit that Islam has issues especially in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and fundamentalist elements within Pakistan. But we are talking about a fringe here that has come to represent the wider religion of Islam.

The problem is largely stemming from Saudi Arabia and lawless regional areas of Pakistan, which both construct and fund maddrassas preaching a ultra conservative, anti western Islamic subsect called Wahhabist Islam. This is all ties back to funding from Saudi Arabia, though for some odd reason no Western power ever criticizes its funding and application (OIL) this subset of Islam which created 11 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 and continues to send soldiers into areas where 'Jihad' thrives be it Chechnya, Afghanistan or Iraq. The Saudi Royal family controls the masses through its oppressive religion that allows them to stay in power indefinitely, western powers are too afraid to question the de facto standard fearing economic effects with regards to oil. See how Washington took no stance on the recent abusive verdict of a Saudi woman who was gang raped and then punished herself for being with unrelated man at the time of the attack.

Islam is a religion with at war with itself, but it doesn't preach segregation or enslavement of women, thought control or violence but it is a religious movement that has been corrupted through political aspirations of those seeking power. The Islamic Caliphate at its height ruled from Spain to Iran, it mingled with other faiths and peoples, and did not impose its religion on those areas it claimed. Unfortunately moderate voices in Islam are hardly heard or ignored by the sensationalist media and figures like Pat Condell.

There is no separation between those that follow the faith according to the teachings and do so with respect to other gender and minorities such as Sunni Hanafism, Sufi Islam and Ismaeli movement. Indonesia, Turkey, Uzbekistan are just some of the Islamic states I can think of, they are not operating on that level you mention. Not to mention the large and growing Islamic communities in Canada and the USA.

Take for example those extremist elements in the UK preaching Sharia law acceptance and other restrictive practices, they are trying to create a social divide between those who are faithful and those they deem outside of Islam. By actually paying attention to them and reporting on it you are creating a self feeding cycle, because they can claim oppression, and build further divides between elements of society. But at the end of the day they are all immigrants living in a foreign land bound by the laws and regulations of that land, all coming there to lead a better life then the one they lead in their own nations. I believe they are hypocritical cunts personally that use the religion for their own ends.

The UK government is at fault here as well, they are being overly politically correct to a religious movement that should be treated as religion not some atomic bomb. Muslims follow the faith at their choice they shouldn't be treated any more special then Christians or Jews, bar preventing religious conflicts if targeted (this applies to all).

A recent Economist article looked at how Islam and immigration is being used by European politicians hoping to gain votes by inciting differences, especially when it comes to certain issues (eg Mosques being built). The benefits are easy to deduce, they benefit those extremists who can claim their religion is being attacked, and they benefit those hoping to garner votes and political power based on xenophobia and misunderstanding (see previous Swiss elections). In Germany, Netherlands and France the influx of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East only aggravates the problem, cohesion into European society is hard for immigrants, and there aren't many institutions that deal with it. But I don't see Islam putting shackles on European society thats a bit silly and sensationalized.

I think the problem is a little more complex then just saying lets get rid of Islam tomorrow, forcing people down a certain path of action is just as bad as imposition of thought control. I think a dialog should be made, I think there needs to be understanding on both sides, between those who don't know the faith and those who follow it. I personally think Islam needs to comeback to tolerance and major reforms should take place. In the short term understanding will allow intermingling and eventual passive shifts in thought through being exposed to a free society, and higher education. Religion becomes a choice and or leads to atheism. However attacking the faith and citing it as being foolish or stupid or a bad idea is only going to create further divides.

Like most tomes of information, most religious texts do contain some pretty solid truth. The biggest beef lies from this vantage point, with people's apparatus being an amalgam of imprint and poor habits, which render them incapable of deriving meaning from datum. (Duuuhhhh, some folks kin read a book and derive no real meaning from it, save the reality of subjective/selective conclusions via filtration through their corrupted hard-drives.....)

Like I have always maintained with the atheist's baby-out-with-the-bathwater tunnel realities.
The Bible, The Koran,Zoroastrian-Gnostic-Hindu-Jainist-Sufi-texts, Urantia, Crowleyan, Sikh, Shinto,Tibetan and Zen.....take yer pick, it's up to the discerning reader, to find the gold-Oh, what?? You think that universal truths are simply handed out like a fucking wine and wafer???!! Think again, monkey boy!!!

The Mevlevi, or "The Whirling Dervishes", believe in performing their dhikr in the form of a "dance" and music ceremony called the sema. The Sema represents a mystical journey of man's spiritual ascent through mind and love to "Perfect." Turning towards the truth, the follower grows through love, deserts his ego, finds the truth and arrives to the "Perfect." He then returns from this spiritual journey as a man who has reached maturity and a greater perfection, so as to love and to be of service to the whole of creation....

Sema literally means a joyful song and comes from the Arabic word, sam that means to listen, but Sema' at whole means song (avaz), ecstasy (vajd) and dance (pay-kubi and dast-afshani) with its special rules and orders. Sema-o-raghs means the Sufism dance.

The Sema is a beautiful thing to see, there is a video of it on YouTube here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S45OJnQp6mI

"The Sema Ceremony comemmerates the passing of Hz. Mevlana Jelaluddin RUMI, known in the west as a 13th-century mystic poet. He also founded the Mevlevi Sufi Order, still active worldwide 733 years after his passing from this world. This clip shows Whirling Dervishes of the Mevlevi Order of America in the Sema Ceremony in Istanbul, December 2005. We presented the Sema Ceremony in Eugene, Seattle and Portland December 2006, and will present Sema in N.Y., D.C. and New Jersey in December 2007. Further information at hayatidede.org. "