You know what I find sadly amusing? All those "cultural supremacists" (most of which hide their xenophobia under a thin mask of concern about Islam's ethical failings) go on about how Judeo-Christian values are better, not realising that Islam is largely a rehash of the Bible/Torah they defend so ardently.

Sharia Law? Taken from the Torah/Old Testament.
Fire for the infidels? An exaggeration of Jesus' infernal invention.
Exterminating your "God's" enemies? Read the Old Testament already.

You do realise, I hope, that sharia law is almost entirely copy-pasted from jewish law as found in the Torah/Old Testament (i.e. what this sh1thead's brandishing), right? Just a reminder in case you were one of those "judeo-christian values are better than those of islam" kind of people.

>> ^quantumushroom:

An unpleasant and/or misguided character, yes. But it's his right, both to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Say, doesn't that wacky islam condemn homosexuals to death as well as a host of brutal 'corrections' for women who defy muslim law?

(a copy of the messy comment above)

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_hon
orkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_
in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

@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?

>> ^MrFisk:

I thought Buddhism was the religion peace.
Oh, and religion doesn't cause violence, it's only used by people who want to do violence.
http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201101/2274226241.html


Very compelling and comprehensive article, pity the opening comparison is so disingenuous. (Speaking of which, I disagree that it's "only those who want to commit violence" that do so. How do you fit the application of sharia law, for example, - and its support from the population - into that narrow point of view?)

Some commentary on one of the conclusive passages (and I quote):

"If religion plays a significant causal role in anything, it is maximizing and maintaining in-group cooperation and identity. But so do sports, political parties, gangs, music, universities, etc. Religion does provide two things beyond what these nontheistic groups can. First, religion can unify much bigger and more varied groups of people than sports teams and the like. Second, religion offers a vaguely defined supernatural agent whose presence is unverifiable and thus unchallengable. While this may increase the likelihood that someone will engage in costly behaviors, these costs are demonstrations of commitment and thus provide reliable indicators that one won't betray the group. Beyond supernatural claims, there is not anything about religion that is not found elsewhere."

There are a few key elements that the author of this article glosses over:

1) unlike sports, gangs, political parties etc., religious belief is instilled into a person practically from birth, acting on a person's belief and behavioural systems long before they are mature enough to make calculated (not to say rational... what's rational about rugby? ) decisions of adherence. As Dawkins points out, religion makes use of a child's primal trust in its parents, transferring that trust onto an unquestionable power.

2) most religious beliefs present a parallel of parental authority, with its motivational corollaries (punishment-reward), but the figure(s) of authority are absolute, unchallengeable because of their supernatural nature. Add to that the fact that the "punishment-reward" usually concerns an eternity of either bliss or torture, and you get a motivator/rationaliser for unethical acts that is effective even when there are practically no other motivations.

Why did these people do what they did? Why did middle-class, educated individuals fly planes into the twin towers? What did they have to gain? If such acts are simply "reliable indicators that one won't betray the group" (how does a dead person do that already?) than maybe that right there is an indicator of religion's particular virulence.

@SDGundamX

Wow, where to start. Your reply to my latest comment illustrates how you (willingly or ignorantly?) continue to misconstrue the issue, building up strawman after strawman, putting words and notions in Harris' mouth and mine, while ignoring everything I post. And then you post an article that maliciously distorts the views of Harris and Hitchens, depicting them as solely intent on vilifying Islam. If that article really describes what you think than I should probably stop arguing with you and spend my time better, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Yes, I read the book you linked, or at least what the preview offered, which was more than enough to show that it does not go against anything Harris or I argue, only against the strawmen you prop up. A few comments on the book nonetheless:

The introduction (the one not by the book's author) is full of wishy-washy 'everything-and-its-contraire' platitudes, and ironically refers to Muslims as a unified whole, which is exactly what you accuse H. and I of... that's a good start; it's okay to make sweeping generalizations if they're positive? But even this text recognises that the secular influence of the "West" upon Muslim modernists forces them away from the core tenets of Islam and it's sacred text, which then sees the rise of fundamentalist backlash. And then there's this tidbit in the conclusion:

"Muslims, we often forget, do not always act as Muslims or members of a religious community; rather, they respond to economic, social and political needs that may direct conduct more than ideological signposts do."

Well hello captain Obvious! Either he's trying to address Christian right white trash, in which case he should use a bilboard instead of a book (I kid, I kid), or he takes his projected audience for fools. Or maybe he's building up to the sort of strawmen you seem so fond of attacking.

Now to the actual book: the author suggests that the world concentrates on "Arab" Islam, and ignores the rest. Not only is that false (at least where H. and I are concerned), not only does it carry racist undertones (yes, "Arab" is, for lack of a better word, a "race"; "Muslim" is not), but it purposefully ignores that the Middle East is Islam's birthplace, and still regarded as it's "Mecca" (haha). It's fine and dandy to put the blame that it deserves on European colonialism, but the author seems to forget that the spread of Islam is mostly due to, hey, Arabo-Islamic colonisation (and/or military conquest, sometimes with a healthy sprinkling of "cleansing", i.e. persecution of non-muslims 'till there were none left). But hey, Christianity did the same.
A really weird part is when the author somehow turns our quasi-universal use of the "Christian" calender into an illustration of Euro-American "structural violence and hegemony". Wow.
All in all, I learned nothing new whatsoever from what I read of that book, and cannot recommend it.

So there are modern/accomodationist interpretations of the Qur'an and Islamic doctrine? So not all Muslims are crazy male Saladins (I'm not making this up)? No one here is disputing that. So there are also other factors at work here? Not being denied either.

Neither are we arguing that muslims are more likely to commit violence than anyone else. By taking away the bold when citing me, you changed the meaning of the citation, creating one of the strawmen you also use to attack Harris: the key words are "in the name of" (or, to paraphrase "with the justification/motivation" of religion).

What is being argued is that Islam, i.e. the doctrines found in the Qur'an and Hadith, justify - render moral even - actions that are unethical, harmful, violent (the same is true of the Bible, from which Sharia law stems, but it is much less practiced than under Islam). That is why I quote the Qur'an, which - whether you like it or not - constitutes the core of the religion called "Islam" ("submission", btw... a pretty bad start). Nor can you deny that said religion demands that its holy text be considered the infallible and ultimate word of God (33:36). Many Muslims ignore the worser parts? Yay hooray! Doesn't change that some do not.

As for evidence (of which the book you cite, at least the parts accessible to me, contained none), you will never get it from me because you want evidence that supports the strawman arguments you put in H.'s mouth and mine, and there's no way you're getting that from either. What you do get, from the small sample of examples above (in a mess of html, i admit), is evidence that Islam today, more than any other religion, is at the source of (e.g. application of Sharia law) or aggravates (e.g. honour killing, fgm) acts of violence, discrimination and barbarity.

Is the fact that more than half of the active terrorist groups in existence today wear their Islamist agenda proudly, often including it in their name, not "evidency" enough for you?

Is the fact that unethical practices are condoned by Islamic (and almost only Islamic) regimes, even enshrined in civil law (which is also religious law), not evidence of Islam's virulence?

What more do you want? You say "You can't attack the religion without attacking the people who believe in that religion". You, and the author of that pathetic excuse of an article you just linked to, are trying to project a generalising, hate and fear-mongering view on people like Harris and myself, something I find both ignorant and insulting. Of course I can criticise an ideology, warn against its potential (and existing) negative consequences, without targeting every one of its adherents, or even the majority thereof. When Hitchens points out that the idea of vicarious redemption, central to Christianity, is unethical, and the Christian God's treatment of Abraham disgusting, is he saying that all Christian's are unethical and disgusting?

You say: Prove that people in Islamic countries are suffering because of Islam and not because we colonized them, used them as pawns in our own political games, got overthrown or kicked out, then either left them to rot or turned them into our oil suppliers while funding autocratic regimes and looking the other way as they tortured and killed their own people. Prove that it's Islam and not the appalling lack of medical care, education, political access, or access to a reliable legal system that accounts for the violence. Prove that the tenets of Islam are a significant factor in the violence and not just lipservice paid to justify it.

Quite simple really: compare pre-Islamic revolution Iran with post-Islamic revolution Iran. Compare the twin fates of Pakistan and India, the former being "created" as an Islamic nation. Which of the two bears the record for honour killings (the Sihks and Hindus try hard to catch up, I know)? Which of the two was hiding the world's most famous terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist? Which of the two has one of the lowest rates of literacy for women? In which of these two countries, whose post-colonial fate is practically identical, do you have 7/10 chances to be sexually abused in a police station if you are a women? I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Colonialism and its modern forms (globalisation, etc.) have a lot of blame to shoulder, no doubt whatsoever. But that does not diminish in any way the import and effect of Islam's doctrines. Did colonialists invent sharia law, for example, or demand it be enforced? No. Mohamed and his ideology did.
Blaming everything on colonialism and "western" influence is a twisted form of pretentiousness, as if only the "west" could come up with bad stuff. Arabs, Asians, Africans, etc. are people too, they too can be atrocious, it's not just reserved for the whiteys! It's as wrong as blaming slavery entirely on Europe and the American colonies. The slave trade in Africa and the Middle East was going on long before "westerners" became buyers, and guess who was doing the trading?

As long as you insist on blinding yourself to the influence of Islam in the world today, or at least to its negative aspects, you will have a skewed and prejudiced view, exactly what you are accusing others of. Of course it is only one factor among many, but it is an important factor, whether that suits your guilt-by-association-ridden conscience or not.

@SDGundamX

You really don't seem to get it; you keep saying that Harris (and myself) are speaking of Muslims as a group, when what is being discussed, what you so blithely discard, is the motivation that the ideology of Islam provides for violent and unethical action. Where does sharia law come from? Islam. Why do certain populations fight to keep it in place? Because of their religious faith. Why is terrorism and suicide bombing depicted as religious martyrdom by certain religious leaders and a percentage of muslims? Because it has basis in the Qur'an.
Harris is not saying "be afraid of muslims", he's saying "beware the content and effects of Islamic ideology when put into practice".

I should have known that you would not be content with the evidence, because what you want me to show is something I do not argue (nor does Harris), i.e. that muslims are more prone to violence than non-muslims. Just because the effects of an ideology and its doctrines are not universally put into action by its adherents does not mean that it bears no effect. In Uganda, the MP responsible for the "Kill the gays" bill makes it very clear that his motivations are religious, but according to your (il)logic, because other countries with Christian populations do not punish homosexuality with the death penalty, this bill has nothing to do with Christianity.

Nobody is saying that religion is the only cause or aggravating circumstance in all these cases of violence and unethical behaviour, but it is definitely one to be reckoned with; and Islam, in this day and age, is the religious ideology that causes the most harm around the world. If you can't see that, fine, remain willfully oblivious to what is happening around the world, but don't think for a minute that the millions of muslims suffering because of Islam (yes, the majority of its victims are muslims themselves) are going to thank you for your culturally relativistic "respect".

>> ^aaronfr:

Although I applaud her for using comedy as a way to bring the truth out and challenge the status quo (which is what most good comics do), something about this clip bothered me. It had more to do with the crowd than anything. Telling jokes to a room full of stuffy, white people at a dinner party hardly seems like the way to achieve her stated goal of re-training the Islamic fundamentalists. It was more like the audience got a chance to laugh and snicker at jokes about scary Muslims they would be too afraid to tell themselves.


You should see this video then, in which she picks up a sharia law apologist (a women can't do that according to sharia... silly, I know)

I highly doubt that "stuffy white people" are her only audience, but seriously, do you think she could get away with this kind of humour in front of Islamist fundamentalists without being killed? When she says we need to reeducate the fundamentalists in Europe, she means "we" the society, including the "stuffy white people".

As for "snickering at jokes about scary Muslims", a) a non-muslim telling such a joke would make no sense and b) the multiculturalist relativists would be screaming RACIST* and probably suing. Humour is a great way of communicating controversial subjects, and that is one reason why Islam officials are trying to silence its opponents with Blasphemy laws, when the humourists are not simply being attacked/killed by fanatics.

*which is ridiculous because Islam is an ideology, not a race. But a lot of ignorant people here in Europe, on both the right and the left, don't seem to understand that.

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

edit: html's not working, so this looks like crap. sorry, i'm too tired to rearrange right now.


>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp
You repeated his speaking points and provided no evidence to support them and then insinuated that I know nothing of Islam's teachings to boot. You've clearly learned from your teachers (Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) quite well.
Show me some evidence please that shows that Islamic followers are more likely to cause harm to fellow human beings than others. By evidence I mean an empirical study that controls for other factors that include but are not limited to: education, income, regional cultural factors (other than religion), and local political systems (or lack thereof as the case may be, for example in countries such as Somalia).
And no, you didn't correct that for me. It doesn't matter their stated reasons for committing the violence. People who resort to violence do so for a complex array of reasons. I dispute the notion that people commit violence soley "because of their religion" any more than school shootings occur "because kids play violent video games."

Your ignorance is sadly typical, but perhaps curable. There's no need to 'lie' about islam and the quran, they are their own worst enemies.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

You are presently duped into defending a pedophile warlord and the defective and inferior civilizations that are the best islam can produce. More studying on your part is required.


>> ^9547bis:


>> ^quantumushroom:
by its own "holy" book, islam demands one of 3 choices for faithful muslims encountering infidels: kill, convert or enslave. A fourth option is to pretend to assimilate into a society, until the muslim minority becomes a majority. Then, enact sharia law.
islam = freedom fail

Exactly! Which is why Muhammad invaded everyone. Ho, wait, the Muslim expansion wasn't during his lifetime.
But yeah, after that they choked all other faiths. Ho wait, it was actually forbidden to convert for two hundred years. Anyway, after that they sure enslaved all those infidels. Well except the Jews. And the Christians. And, erm, the Mazdaists.
Ha damnit, I have to give it to you QM, I can't lie as well as you do (-:

>> ^quantumushroom:

by its own "holy" book, islam demands one of 3 choices for faithful muslims encountering infidels: kill, convert or enslave. A fourth option is to pretend to assimilate into a society, until the muslim minority becomes a majority. Then, enact sharia law.
islam = freedom fail


Exactly! Which is why Muhammad invaded everyone. Ho, wait, the Muslim expansion wasn't during his lifetime.
But yeah, after that they choked all other faiths. Ho wait, it was actually forbidden to convert for two hundred years. Anyway, after that they sure enslaved all those infidels. Well except the Jews. And the Christians. And, erm, the Mazdaists.

Ha damnit, I have to give it to you QM, I can't lie as well as you do (-:

by its own "holy" book, islam demands one of 3 choices for faithful muslims encountering infidels: kill, convert or enslave. A fourth option is to pretend to assimilate into a society, until the muslim minority becomes a majority. Then, enact sharia law.

islam = freedom fail

I looked all over the sift and found nothing about Nidal Hassan, the treasonous Ft. Hood vermin. While premeditated murder is fine for the left, I guess loud, harsh language is simply too much for sensitive, politically-correct ears.

Once again, CAIR is playing liberals like a kanoon.

Sure, there were a few yahoos in every group; there are currently 100,000 in Wisconsin.

Those poor women in hijabs are in far more in danger of being "honor" killed by their fathers and brothers than by these protestors.

http://thereligionofpeace.com/

sharia law is for slaves and fools.

How can you say that Obama doesn't understand the significance of the situation? We all have been worried about the possibility of violence with Israel and no one wants Sharia law enacted.

I am highly dubious that he is unaware of the implications of a Muslim theocracy.

Secondly, it does not look like that is going to happen necessarily. The people want a democracy with elected leaders.

@quantumushroom

I do enjoy that you took the time to step through each argument made in the video.

>>> Thanks to all who wrote similar sentiments.

Some of your interpretations seemed mildly redeeming to the statements that made
the people look so foolish. I think they probably fall in the middle of our perspectives.
I think they are morons, you think they are making well argued points.

>>>> I didn't say their points were well-argued. They were brief responses and gut reactions. You'd get the same brief 'talking points' if you asked a roomful of leftists about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (It's about oil, lies, war crimes, etc.)


Showing such obvious fear of Obama being Muslims is pretty silly. Then to say his religion is liberalism, the most intolerant religion of all. Well that is now clearly conflicting. (I agree here I think he does care about equality more than religion. Making him one of the few people who actually represent what this religion thing is supposed to be about).

>>>> There is a rational argument why Obama being an actual Muslim (unlikely) or Muslim sympathizer (a case can be made this is so) is dangerous. That argument is Muslim Sharia law and Western-style Republics are incompatible. It makes little sense to me that a liberal would adopt a "live and let live" attitude towards Islam, when Islam--per the Quran--demands conversion, enslavement or death to infidels. In "functional" countries under Sharia law such as Saudi Arabia, women are 2nd-class citizens, about as far from the left's much-vaunted equality as you can go.

These
people are so obviously looking for things to blame Obama for its sad. I respect your position a
lot more now that you tried to reason it out. Sadly the source material your working with is
such a handicap even envoking good arguments leaves you with little traction. They will hate Obama
no matter what.

>>>> Well, didn't the left hate Bush no matter what? Yet during his reign, Bush promoted and rubber-stamped all of the government programs the left loves, plus crap like Medicare 'D'.

I'm looking at the whole picture when it comes to Obama. I don't see a leader, only a collection of gaffes. Despite his own book sales, I don't see a capitalist or supporter of free markets, I see a guy who feels he has a right to manipulate others' wealth to promote his own brand of 'social justice'. Ignoring Constitutional questions about power and giving him the benefit of a doubt about his intent in establishing more FDR-like socialism, when the numbers are crunched on Obamacare, they don't add up. It is of great concern then, why he earns blind support from the left, regardless of negative results.

As much as the left dislikes FOX news, you would think it would ask itself 'Why is FOX alone in questioning Obama's authority?' Well?