I think we agree completely with Sam Harris in that Islam is in desperate need of a reformation. I won't bring Reza Aslan into this as I haven't read him, and it seems to be tangential at best.

But, acknowledge what you just said when you said that Islam is in need of reformation. You are saying what Sam is saying: That Islam contains some horrible ideas, and people are acting on those ideas, and we need to find a way to marginalize those ideas within the canon of Islam.

We could end the disagreement right there, except for where we stand in history at this point. If Christianity had undergone its reformation in a post nuclear arsenals world, who knows where we would be. It is because of this that it behooves everyone to encourage this reformation of Islam, and potentially to limit their access to apocalyptic weaponry until such a reformation has taken place. That's a different discussion though.

I think Sam's position is that one of the potential motivations behind suicide bombing is martyrdom and jihad. Real belief in those particular dogma alone is sufficient to justify suicide attacks. There are definitely plenty of terrorist actions that take place for completely non-religious reasons, and I bet that the bulk of them combine the two. But that doesn't refute Sam's point.

As for your last bit about literal interpretations, I don't agree there either, at least not entirely. How could you possibly explain the inquisition without resorting to what one would now consider to be fundamentalist readings of the texts? The same fundamentals you're saying weren't in vogue until 100 years ago is the very propaganda used to recruit soldiers to the caliphate's armies centuries ago. In any case it seems unrelated to the discussion when scriptural literalism came about, the fact is that it exists, making it more important that some books contain really bad ideas.

The point I was originally making, which apparently you seem to have missed completely in your haste to say I was making a completely different point, is that the religion Islam is not a religion of peace.

This is the same point that they are arguing about in this video. One side is describing intelligently why Islam, the religion, not everyone who lives in a country who practices it, is a religion that promotes violence and strife. The other side is blindly throwing out incorrect terms and trying to claim bias, racism, or is generally just frothing at the mouth.

You seem to be following the second group's methods for whatever reason. I am not sure why, but I will ask you once more to answer a simple question.

Do you or do you not feel that a religion that promotes killing people who leave it/don't follow it, killing homosexuals, performing acts of terror in the name of jihad, and oppresses women to be a religion of peace?

Again, please note that in no way, shape, or form am I saying that everyone who professes to follow the religion, independent of their location in the world, believes these ideals or acts them out. All I am saying is that the religion itself specifically calls for people who would be 'true' Muslims to perform these acts and that evidence shows that the Muslims who do not feel this way are actually the minority of those following Islam.

The website may be biased, but the polls listed are world recognized polls that are mostly above reproach. Christianity is not at the table on this, nobody is saying that there aren't wackos involved in any religion, but realistically how many christian holy war incidents can you list in the last 20 years? I mean real incidents, not just some random guy doing one thing to a doctor or clinic, but a group of holy christian fighters blowing up swathes of people or beheading them. It's not in the same ballpark, in fact it isn't the same league, or sport.

As far as US international policy goes, we do stupid shit a lot of the time. Other times we get dragged into shit because people complain if we don't. Personally I wish we would cut our defense budget in half and tell the rest of the world to go pound sand when they ask for help, but again it is not the issue of discussion we are looking at.

The issue is whether or not Islam, due to the nature of it's teachings, promotes certain things that lead to war and/or brutal acts. The fact is that it does, assuming you follow the tenets laid forth in the Koran and other works, such as the Sunnah and the anecdotes of the 12 Imams.

What other religion currently follows these tenets in it's religious laws?

- Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate, that is, abandons his or her faith in Islam in order to become an atheist, agnostic or to convert to another religion.
- If a person has never been a Muslim, he or she can live in an Islamic state by accepting to be a dhimmi and pay a Jizyah tax. They cannot practice their religions openly and they also do not have the same rights and legal protections as Muslims.
- Death penalty for Homosexuals
- Numerous women's rights violations and restrictions
- Child marriage
- Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. It is only very recently that it has started to be redefined by a small amount of Muslims as being possible to be non-violent in nature.

As it stands, Islam is not a religion of peace but of strife. Unless you are a casual follower, you will be trying to promote tenets of this religion either through non-violent or violent ways. As we can see around the world and even through the events of the Arab Spring, the violent ways are far more likely.

When a Muslim flies a plane into a building, they are not following a radical interpretation of the Quran, they are following a normative interpretation of the Quran. The Quran commands Muslims to kill Christians and Jews and to wage endless jihad against all unbelievers. The jihadists are the true Muslims whereas the peaceful Muslims are the ones who don't follow the Quran. The difference between violent Christians and Muslims is, violent Christians are going against the teachings of Jesus Christ, whereas violent Muslims are following the teachings of Muhammad.

Can happen, not very likely but tunnel vision takes over on even the most experienced players. And because it is so unlikely, no one counts that as a possibility. There are some odd things here like why not use the shorter route, planning to ninja as those usually happen by mistake and also going out from cover and retreating back just in time, rest of the team going to the left side, lots of coincidences.. But it can definitely happen like that.. Too much focus on mission, you forget to check one corner, you see a mate ahead you think that he has done that etc.

There are countless times when you can just stroll around even bumbing to enemies and no one notices; "i'm in a group of mates, why would there be an enemy that is not shooting" and it goes unnoticed. In games that allow prone it happens even more often, then it's your duty to jihad that place, just pull the pin on all the nades you got..

Real Time with Bill Maher: Jihad Me At Hello has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

99.9% of the knuckleheads commenting here negatively about Israel have never read, let alone heard of, books like Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad and Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. Or From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. Or a book I just started, A Lethal Obsession by Robert Wistrich. Thing is I'm one of these "hope springs eternal" guys because I keep thinking people are like me who was once about as close to being a card carrying member of the KKK as you can be without actually being one. Until I read some books like Malcolm X. Black Like Me and others. While I was in Jr. High getting jumped by black kids trying to punch and stomp my guts out. The useful idiots limit this "conflict" to simply Muslims against Jews yet its a lot more profound than that:

Supplemental Article “The First and Last Enemy: Jew Hatred in Islam.” by Bostom (Frontpage Magazine archive)
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28549

People just refuse to acknowledge the Jew-Hatred that is part of a Muslims DNA. Don't believe what those Interfaith frauds tell you. "Moderate" or not; if you don't hate Jews you're not a true Muslim. If you don't believe that please explain the hatred that is like a disease in Gaza. And if you have half a brain you know it's been there LONG before Israel won its Independence.

The Depravity of the Homicide Bomber’s Recruiters (Frontpage Magazine)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-meir-levi/the-depravity-of-the-homicide-bomber%E2%80%99s-recruiters/

Female Homicide Bomber (suicide) You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22XEkJY62VA

Failed Suicide Bomber Hopes for Another Chance to Kill (You Tube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpXm9hvXroc

Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project September 26, 2002 Special Report No.10 Fiday Sermons in Saudi Mosques: Review and Analysis (MEMRI)
(This is from Saudi Arabia. Same with an article on Islam Sheikh bin Humaid that I read and am submitting below.)
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/736.htm

Islam's Hatred of the Non-Muslim by David Bukay (Middle East Forum)
http://www.meforum.org/3545/islam-hatred-non-muslim

Guest Column: Palestinian TV Teaches Kids The Way to 'Jihad Street' by Abigail R. Esman (Investigative Project)
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4394/guest-column-palestinian-tv-teaches-kids-the-way

Hamas to kids: Shoot all the Jews (Jihad Watch)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/hamas-to-kids-shoot-all-the-jews

Farfour "martyred" by Israelis in final episode (You Tube video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrieBhaGgHM

MEMRI Transcript: Farfour, Hamas' Mickey Mouse Character, Is 'Martyred' in the Final Episode of the "Pioneers of Tomorrow" Children's Show on Hamas Al-Aqsa TV
http://www.memri.org/report/en/print2274.htm

Children as combatants: Motivating children to seek Shahada
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=846

Camp Jihad UN/US Palestine Probaganda and brainwashing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbrafPTe_LQ#at=211

Hamas Summer Camps: Fun, Sun and Guns by Aryeh Savir 7-13-14 (Breaking Israel News)
http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/17721/hamas-summer-camps-fun-sun-guns-photos/#t18RPE7WusjewHqd.97

Michael Coren & David Harris - Palestinian terrorist training camps for kids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtsZXCLD1Lc

“She's Buried Chest High” (You Tube video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

The "Right of Return" Is Suicide for Israel by Jonathan Schanzer (MEF)
http://www.meforum.org/334/the-right-of-return-is-suicide-for-israel

The History of the Middle East Conflict in 11 Minutes (You Tube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY

“Letter to the Editor” International Herald Tribune, July 1, 2003 by Giulia Boukhobza (Also in Bostom's “Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism” book: Chapter 68, page 677: "A Libyan Jew Breaks Her Silence 36 yrs after surviving the 67 Tripolitan Pogrom")
Congressional Record
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2003-09-04/pdf/CREC-2003-09-04-pt1-PgE1682-2.pdf#page=1

The only thing that gives me hope is that sometimes people see the light:

Absolutely Uncertain (You Tube video by “Irina”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgvMGLdc908&list=PLC2A32D103123C08E#t=73
18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008

Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0
Join me as I wreck my last artifact of support for the war criminal-in-chief!! *I figured out the fraud a while back, but recently found this shirt in my closet

The problem with this country is it doesn't read. It doesn't inform itself on the issues. I'd probably still be a major nigger hating racist if it wasn't for books. If you want the skinny on that go to my Facebook Notes and read my "Racism Speech" which really isn't a speech so much as it is part of my memoirs to my two boys.

I wasn't really into this Islam thing until I happened to read The Haj by Leon Uris and Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle almost back to back. I'll submit the following to give you an idea of what happened.

“we may describe it, (jihad), as a surgeon's lancet and not a butcher's knife.” Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (I'm sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him. And this from the guy who's been called the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam.)

About two years ago I ordered some reading material, including Taha's "Second Message", and a “study” Koran to find out what this "Islam thing" was all about. When I was sixteen I was chanting nam yo ho renge kyo to a piece of paper, (gahonzen?), having NO idea what I was doing. A few years later, hair down to my ass and a knapsack on my back, I hitchhiked cross country, got saved in Nashville Tenn. and went to live on a Christian farm in Mansfield Ohio. (Not the prison.) My gra'mom called me a "seeker". As I said, there came a time when I wanted to understand this "religion of peace". It was Humaid's article on jihad I found in my Summarized Bukhari that decided “things” for me.

If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid's article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that's described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it's defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)

Compare Humaid's “jihad” and Emmet Fox' Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and “compassion”.

Lastly; would you pick Sheikh bin Humaid to sit on a Human Rights Commission? (That's a trick question by the way.)

Maybe you can throw in an explanation of the Jews are “monkeys, pigs and rats” on page 656 and the part where Mo says, “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” on page 613 in the chapter on Jihad.

Also, explain why Humaid's “jihad” shouldn't be “Exhibit A” in refuting the “religion of peace” claim.

I've posted this many times to many Muslims and have yet to get a single response. Well, I did receive a response from some goofball named “Dr.” Mohsen El-Guindy asking me to read his books. Instead I downloaded a bunch of his articles. Which were pure rants. An Imam, sidestepped it by telling me I had to “study Islam” to gain a greater understanding.

Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah by 'Sheikh Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?233460-Jihad-in-the-Qur-an-and-Sunnah&s=4df3fc2e4e0596eb3b38115ef4b8f506 ),

Subscribe to Jihad/Campus Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Gatestone Institue, FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker,The Clarion Project, Cross Muslims: Muhammad unveiled, Religion of Peace (dot com) and read Raymond Ibrahim, Efraim Karsh, Patrick Poole, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye'or and others.

“She's Buried Chest High”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Winston Churchill

“What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill

“While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi

Doug Stanhope on saying you're an atheist in Oklahoma - "That's like screaming jihad at airport security". Brilliant.

[edit] and blimey i just noticed what's number one on Videosift!

I would say diplomacy as a solution to Islamic jihadism is as naive as was diplomacy with the nazis. Pakistan's current rule of law is the death penalty for blaspheming the name of the prophet, and not only is that too secular for the taliban jihadists, it is so intolerably so that they are waging a war against civilians over it. The proudly claim credit for shooting children on school buses, and proudly note their intent to finish Malala off if given the chance. What kind of diplomacy do you expect to see followed exactly?

Should Pakistan's military and police really refuse to meet the countless taliban attacks on civilian targets with no use of force? Should they really just proceed to try and talk to the criminals prosecuting these crimes every single week? I think it's a strategy doomed to horrific failure, and one that invariably leads to far more death and suffering.

History doesn't exactly bare out that ignoring dictators and extremists leads to them just giving up and playing nice. Brutality was terribly successful and effective for the Pharoahs. Same for the Caesars. Same for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il and on and on and on. There comes a point when failure to face evil with force just emboldens and strengthens it.

"Can anyone honestly say that the US has objectively done nothing to be ashamed of? At best more to be proud of than ashamed of but that does on abrogate responsibility for the latter."
Well said, just remember to cut both ways on that. The fact America has plenty to be ashamed of and apologize for doesn't mean it's fair game to ignore both the good that America has done, and more importantly, it doesn't abrogate the responsibility of all other nations and dicatators for their own crimes.

"You have to point out that Al Qaeda has very little support and would have WAY less if they weren't recruited by the Wars and actions of the United States. When 9/11 happened there was a ridiculous outpouring of support from the Muslim world even after we've terrorized them for decades."

Name a muslim nation that did NOT have spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11. Yes, very few governments praised or failed to condemn the attacks, but even in states deemed American 'friendly' like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan there were people dancing in the streets and handing out candies for the kids. don't underestimate the support there is for groups with Al Qaida's ideals. Saudi Arabian 'charities' have been funnelling billions of dollars every year into northern Pakistan ever since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. That money is used almost exclusively for the construction of male only madrassahs. Not the good kind that teach reading and arthimetic on the side either. They are the bad ones that are there for brainwashing and training up jihadists for a war they are currently waging against the moderate muslims in Pakistan.

"Drones, Wars, Sanctions, and General Terrorism is what fuels Al Qaeda."
You are wrong. You need to understand that America is NOT their real target or goal. The jihad is within middle eastern nations and is currently an entirely domestic war. The only care for America is that it either not get involved, or only be involved in ways that benefit them. The war in Afghanistan and drone attacks may have helped gain them some recruits, it may continue to help for years even. It also lost them their years of support and connections with senior Pakistani leadership. They have come from a place where they had close friends and strong relationships with Pakistan's ISI and military, to a place today where they are nominally speaking public enemy number one. We aren't out of the woods yet there, but I think you miss the reason all of this has been centering near and within Pakistan's borders. Everyone always talks about the uneasy nuclear stand off between Pakistan and India. From the jihadists stance though, they had a devotedly Islamic nation with nuclear weapons, paranoid about it's nemesis, and were the leadership was heavily connected, infiltrated and indebted to jihadists or jihad friendly people. The jihadists desperately wanted to push the Pakistan-India conflict over the edge and those designs have been set back decades now.

@Kofi / @Yogi

I agree with what you are both saying. I'm sure you guys are aware of the origins of Al Qaeda both in the context of (1) their Mujahideen origins in Afghanistan propped up by the US against their Soviets and (2) their inception during the radicalisation of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt through the government's imprisonment and torture campaign while supported by the US.

However, by the time of 9/11, I'd argue Al Qaeda was long detached from any of its original goals (partly as a result of US actions that radicalised them) and had lost its idealism and was an organisation seeking power and global recognition.

That's also why I think the situation visa vi the US/Middle East has destabilised to a point that even were the US to withdraw from its military bases, propping up of dictators and disentangle itself from Israel then Al Qaeda would still target the US simply because those actions have replaced its initial aims and have become its raison d'etre.

That's not to say the US shouldn't get out of the Middle East because continued presence in this way is creating more groups that grow from local conflicts to global war with the US but I'm more saying, that it would be naive to expect organisations such as Al Qaeda to dissapear were the US to do this. Their existence is predicated on opposition to the US and were the US to disengage, they would simply manufacture reasons to continue their own global jihad. It's a bit of a Catch 22, damned if you do, damned if you don't at this point.

Who crafts the language of the law and the descriptive terminology used to codify offenders? The argument here (see out-dated scrap of guidelines) is when does your average Joe become the "exigent circumstance" and who decides what, when, who, how, and where such a circumstantial decision leading to action should be brought into play....and at that point, what action and where is the agreed-upon line drawn? The justification for a door-to-door in Boston this week did not come from the referenced, " American law of criminal procedure" which is quite possibly, a fluid, up-for-interpretation piece of horseshit.

At face value...Jack-boots in armor going door-to-door with adrenaline pumping leads to fucking chaos or police state, and, sorry men-in-black, there are better ways to looks for kooks. Fuck the po-lice and their newfangled ways of doing their half-assed assignments! The goddamn bomber would have found his own ass in 3 more hours trying to buy tampons to stick in his wounds if half the cops looking for him were on a 3-day-drunk ANYHOW!

Yeah-The fucking police violated rights and used some jihad-teen's actions and their own balls as license, don't care how the law reads.

OOooops!-You alerted the comment down-vote PC police squad of culpable deniers with that one bobby, you pathetic troll!! You, you, anti-community, rabble-rouser!!

Didn't you get the memo?? All presidents are sacred since Bush Jr. in this poorly-constructed paradigm-Plus he's an African-American so he's holier than the new fucking pope-Some folks treat divisive language against our cunt president with jihad-launching fervor not unlike drawing a goddamn cartoon strip featuring Mohammed-

Remember: Don't feed these trolls!!

When an atheist/agnostic is wrong, they learn.

When a creationist is wrong, they declare a jihad, they have a crusade, they excommunicate.

and they may take up to 600 years to issue an apology when they are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

Science is just a tad bit quicker to admit when they're incorrect.

And +1 to the idea that agnosticism or non-theist is a more accurate stance to take than atheism. But yeah, it's hard to dismiss that a term that was once considered negative often gets turned around into a positive one and that's the term that gets used due to the fluidity of language.

Nerd is hardly an accurate term to describe someone, but Nerd is a previously derogatory term that has been turned around into a positive one.

I disagree with Dawkins though. Atheists/agnostics have to be the better people, that's why I've never appealed to the idea of militant atheism. Certain people, IMO, merely want revenge against religion because of the atrocities inflicted by religion and there is a fine line between justice and revenge.

I don't want revenge. Freedom of religion is a good thing, but then again, so is separation of church and state. People can believe whatever they want to, but when it comes to governance, we *have* to govern based on reproduce-able facts, not faith.