@SDGundamX

(just so you know, I do not agree with everything Harris says, but he makes quite a few good points).

Interesting extract from this article (bold=added): http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/holy-terror


Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over the present. The social policy that can be derived from the Koran currently poses even greater dangers. According to this text, it is the duty of every Muslim man to make war on unbelievers (Koran 9:73 and 9:123), and such men are promised eternal happiness after death. It is true that many Muslims seem inclined to ignore the Koran’s solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the fact that many are not so inclined, and they now regularly murder innocent noncombatants for religious reasons. The phrase “the war on terrorism” is a dangerous euphemism that obscures the true cause of our troubles in the world, because we are currently at war with precisely the vision of life prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. Anyone who reads this text will find non-Muslims vilified on nearly every page. How can we possibly expect devout Muslims to happily share power with “the friends of Satan”? How can we expect the faithful to feel about people who God himself is in the process of “mocking,” “cursing,” “shaming,” “punishing,” “scourging,” “judging,” “burning,” “annihilating,” “not forgiving,” and “not reprieving”? While there are many charges that can be fairly leveled at men like Osama bin Laden, perverting the teachings of the Koran is not among them. Why did nineteen well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed that they would go straight to Paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of human beings so fully and satisfactorily explained. And yet, many of us are reluctant to accept this explanation.

Religious faith is always, and everywhere, exonerated. It is now taboo in every corner of our culture to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. Consequently, we are unable to even name, much less oppose, one of the most pervasive causes of human conflict. And the fact that there are very real and consequential differences between our religious traditions is simply never discussed. Anyone who thinks that terrestrial concerns are the principal source of Muslim violence must explain why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers. They, too, suffer the daily indignity of the Israeli occupation. Where, for that matter, are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against the Chinese? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam.

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."

>> ^chilaxe:

The video doesn't really explain itself, and neither does the videosift description, so this is my understanding of the video's argument:
1. Muslims use this peaceful quote as a defense of the Koran.
2. The Koran does indeed contain that quote, ch. 5 verse 32, but the next verse, 33, doesn't extend that niceness to people 'who wage war against Allah and make mischief in the land,' calling for their execution.
That seems like a fair point, and Muslims should definitely be forthcoming about it instead of getting defensive, but verse 33 doesn't actually seem to me to be bad at all if you interpret it the right way.

(The full verses can be read in multiple translations at the link provided in the videosift description: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement
/resources/texts/muslim/quran/005.qmt.html )


No, verse 33 is terrible in and of itself. What is "spreading corruption"? Being of the wrong religion (or, worse, of none), for example? Being gay, or an "adulteress" woman? The list goes on.

The video doesn't really explain itself, and neither does the videosift description, so this is my understanding of the video's argument:

1. Muslims use this peaceful quote as a defense of the Koran.
2. The Koran does indeed contain that quote, ch. 5 verse 32, but the next verse, 33, doesn't extend that niceness to people 'who wage war against Allah and make mischief in the land,' calling for their execution.

That seems like a fair point, and Muslims should definitely be forthcoming about it instead of getting defensive, but verse 33 doesn't actually seem to me to be bad at all if you interpret it the right way.


(The full verses can be read in multiple translations at the link provided in the videosift description: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/005.qmt.html )

>> ^hpqp:

Meanwhile, Iran's team forfeits 2012 Olympic qualifiers for wearing too much.


I'm surprised they are allowed to play at all. You'd assume there was something in the Koran that forbade it.

The punishments of those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to spread disorder in the land are to execute them in an exemplary way or to crucify them or to amputate their hands and feet from opposite sides or to banish them from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom save those who repent before you overpower them; you should know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Ever Merciful.

source is Koran surah 5:33.

Is anyone here really trying to spread disorder across the sift?

What we have here is squabbles.

... The pursuit of interests generates various types of conflict. Thus conflict is seen as a normal aspect of social life rather an abnormal occurrence. Competition over resources is often the cause of conflict

source: wikipedia

The sift should have a positive atmosphere, period.

But banhammers aren't going to start disputes from starting, these disputes are just going to simmer underground.

If flamewars spill over into every channel, see my Koran quote above. Cut them up.
otherwise, current system is good. very good. no?

>> ^bareboards2:

I hope this doesn't throw gasoline on the fire. That asshole was loved by many. If they kill people for burning a Koran, I shudder to think about the next weeks.

Hey BB, I echo your hopes that this doesn't happen. That said, I do want to underscore that OBL gave the US little choice after what he has done. If there are any repercussions as a result of this, I would assert that this is an excuse rather than a reason.


To build on and slightly modify your analogy..... the crappy US foreign policy overall since the 50's represents gallons and gallons of fuel. If anything happens because of this, it's a spark to that tinder.

>> ^bareboards2:

I hope this doesn't throw gasoline on the fire. That asshole was loved by many. If they kill people for burning a Koran, I shudder to think about the next weeks.


I think you are correct...
A facebook page dedicated to Osama's memory and greatness:
Can't get the url to work here... seems like it has been hijacked by anti-Osama fans already though...

broken url:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/We-are-all-Osama-Bin-Laden-%D9%83%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%86
/212908885395072

I hope this doesn't throw gasoline on the fire. That asshole was loved by many. If they kill people for burning a Koran, I shudder to think about the next weeks.

>> ^LizLizscott:

Dirty Arab Egyptian scum
Where does it say in that foul Koran of yours does it say it is OK to rape women
Muhammad has created a horrible religion and you think Christianity is bad
Both are misogynistic but I think Islam takes the cake.
Its a shame that you have taken your moment in the sun and turned it into a vile and despicable act.
There is no excuse for that behavior.
Now I suppose we must kill Ms. Logan because it is her fault you animals attacked her.
Isn't that what you dopes do "honor killing".
Maybe you will overstep your bounds with your new found military dictatorship
and provoke Israel so the Jews can destroy your country as they did in 67.
Terms such as freedom and democracy are words you can not understand
until you free yourselves from "to serve"


While I understand the intensity of your feelings about this, I think you should check that you're still being rational enough about your position.

Dirty Arab Egyptian scum
Where does it say in that foul Koran of yours does it say it is OK to rape women
Muhammad has created a horrible religion and you think Christianity is bad
Both are misogynistic but I think Islam takes the cake.
Its a shame that you have taken your moment in the sun and turned it into a vile and despicable act.
There is no excuse for that behavior.
Now I suppose we must kill Ms. Logan because it is her fault you animals attacked her.
Isn't that what you dopes do "honor killing".
Maybe you will overstep your bounds with your new found military dictatorship
and provoke Israel so the Jews can destroy your country as they did in 67.
Terms such as freedom and democracy are words you can not understand
until you free yourselves from "to serve"

Uh, where exactly did Christian influences play a role in that? >> ^Reefie:

>> ^EMPIRE:
yeah... arabic mentality is not exactly the most respectful towards women (surprise, surprise!).

Wasn't always like that so it's not fair to generalise. Take a look at how women used to be treated in Afghanistan, they were worshipped and were easily the equals of men (worth also pointing out that the Koran classes men and women as equals). It's only since the end of the second world war when religions such as Christianity and Islam worked to change the perceived role of women in Afghan society so that the last half a decade has radically altered the standing of women in that country. King Amanullah worked very hard to promote women's empowerment in the early 20th century, but all his work has been undone, and from a historical perspective we only need to look towards the Christian and Taliban influences at work in that country to understand how it all got fucked up.

I wasn't talking about how women were treated in the past, or will be treated in the future. I'm talking about the current mentality towards women in most arabic countries.

Sure there's still a lot of discrimination against women in almost every country in the world. But in arabic countries it's particularly bad.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^EMPIRE:
yeah... arabic mentality is not exactly the most respectful towards women (surprise, surprise!).

Wasn't always like that so it's not fair to generalise. Take a look at how women used to be treated in Afghanistan, they were worshipped and were easily the equals of men (worth also pointing out that the Koran classes men and women as equals). It's only since the end of the second world war when religions such as Christianity and Islam worked to change the perceived role of women in Afghan society so that the last half a decade has radically altered the standing of women in that country. King Amanullah worked very hard to promote women's empowerment in the early 20th century, but all his work has been undone, and from a historical perspective we only need to look towards the Christian and Taliban influences at work in that country to understand how it all got fucked up.

>> ^EMPIRE:
yeah... arabic mentality is not exactly the most respectful towards women (surprise, surprise!).


Wasn't always like that so it's not fair to generalise. Take a look at how women used to be treated in Afghanistan, they were worshipped and were easily the equals of men (worth also pointing out that the Koran classes men and women as equals). It's only since the end of the second world war when religions such as Christianity and Islam worked to change the perceived role of women in Afghan society so that the last half a decade has radically altered the standing of women in that country. King Amanullah worked very hard to promote women's empowerment in the early 20th century, but all his work has been undone, and from a historical perspective we only need to look towards the Christian and Taliban influences at work in that country to understand how it all got fucked up.

>> ^blankfist:
SPIT! SPIT! I hate the taste of words in my mouth.
I think you should read DFT's comment above. He got it.


Okay, so here's what DFT said:

Racism still thrives in this country, but the time of being able to say jaw-droppingly racist things in public is coming to a close. I think that's what blankfist meant.

DFT's description of your viewpoint matches mine. You think the problem of people saying jaw-droppingly racist things in public is essentially a solved issue.

Let's recap what's been happening in the public sphere in just the last few months:

Rick Sanchez just got fired for anti-semitic comments on the radio.

Laura Ingraham just got fired for saying nigger 11 times in the space of a few minutes, in the name of trying to prove that the real issues with race are that black people are "oversensitive" about white people saying racist things.

Carl Paladino just gave a speech proclaiming that schools should teach children that homosexuality is immoral.

Jan Brewer in Arizona is constantly telling people that all Mexican immigrants are violent criminals, and has occasionally called it an "invasion" (even though illegal immigration in Arizona has been trending downward for years).

We've had a pretty long, drawn out debate about whether Muslims should be allowed to build a community center within a few miles of Ground Zero, apparently because being Muslim in Manhattan is now offensive or something.

As part of that debate, we've had a bunch of people talking about burning Korans, and calling Islam a "cult" rather than a religion, etc.

Oh, and some lady called into C-SPAN and complained about how black people should be more thankful that white people gave them welfare and medicaid -- which you also find expressed in many of those interviews with people at Tea party rallies.

And that's just sticking to things you're likely to have heard about on TV and in the papers.

In short, if DFT "gets it", then you're saying something that's patently untrue, and highly dismissive of the issue.