Since you brought up unusual punishments, let's take stoning people for adultery (which exists in both the Koran and the Bible). When was the last time someone was stoned to death by a group in the U.S., U.K., Australia, or even Malaysia for adultery? Hundreds of millions of Muslims and Christians around the world seem perfectly fine ignoring that part of their holy texts. Just because something that we find distasteful today is written in the holy text doesn't automatically make the religion evil nor does it suddenly force the practioners to behave like savages.

You need to look at the specifics. Take a look at the countries where stoning actually does still occasionally happen and who actually carries it out: Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Invariably when it does occur it happens in rural areas where there are people who still actually live like it is the middle ages, with extreme poverty and little education to speak of (other than religious). Sure, the book gave them the idea but it wasn't the only factor in play and to ignore these other factors or the fact that honor killings are in fact common across a wide number of cultures with varying religious backgrounds (even the Romans did it) is what would be truly intellectually dishonest.

As for extremists--they exist in all religions including Christianity. It wasn't a mob of Muslims who attacked Charlie Hedbo--it was two deranged individuals. And while some Muslims might have applauded the attack others denounced it, such as the hunderds of thousands of Chechen protestors who who were upset with the cartoons but didn't think violence was the right response (see article here).

Again, it's a complex issue that can't be boiled down to "Islam = Good/Bad." Islam as practiced by ISIS or Boko Haram? Yeah, there's some dark shit going on there. Islam as practiced by average citizens in Kuala Lumpur or Boston? Not so much.

But again, moderate statements based on reason and facts are not what sell books, generate online clicks, or fill lecture halls to capacity.

@hpqp The point is that there is no such thing as "plain old religious fanaticism" - it's always tied up in whatever economic and political circumstances are shaping the region and family and the person committing the act. Sure - religious people would like to think that their religion is separate from their worldly circumstances, but if you don't give credence to any supernatural dimension of religion, it also becomes impossible to separate religion from the other socio-cultural-economic-historic factors that also drive conflict.

I work regularly with Muslims who each are rich enough to buy my worldly belongings a couple of times over, and violence is the farthest thing from their minds. Exploiting migrant workers and suppressing equality and freedom of speech is quite familiar to them, but violence - despite their Muslim faith - is very foreign to most of them. Which of course is why Al Qaeda considers them traitors to Islam - they have too much in common with their supposed enemies the Israelis or Americans, and almost no common points of reference with a radical Muslim Chechen or Afghan.

Islam today is the most violent religion only in its overlap with regions that are good breeding grounds for violent extremism anyway - there's no reason to believe that in a country with the material preconditions the US has that fundamentalist Muslims wouldn't be more like the Westboro Baptists. By trying to indicate that Islam is in itself a greater driver of violence than Christianity, Maher conflates extremely disparate cultures and regions and obscures the real issues.

@hpqp I’m not saying the Boston marathon bombing was political in nature, though I would guess it’s very hard for a radicalized Chechen Muslim to keep politics and religion separate. I’ve also never said that the Boston bombing was a response to any specific US action. Finally, I’ve never said that Islam isn’t batshit crazy (in fact I’ve said it is). However, I am saying that Islam is not fundamentally different from Christianity, which Maher contends that it is.

Poor, oppressed Christians do crazy violent shit with religious motivations and approval . Poor, oppressed Muslims do crazy violent shit with religious motivations and approval. Rich, comfortable Muslims aren’t violent, they’re just oppressive and keep others poor. Rich, comfortable Christians aren’t violent, they’re just oppressive and keep others poor. That doesn’t mean that Islam is a religion of peace – it means that the poor have incentive to turn their religion into violent action, and the rich have incentive to turn their religion into conservative passivity.

I thoroughly dislike religion and religiosity, but I’m not going to ignore the importance of the fundamental materialistic basis of conflict, dressed up as religion.

Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:

@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly pacific passive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.
Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me. the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.

@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.

@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.

Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).

You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"

As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.

@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.

@hpqp How is it ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out, you preposterously pompous prick? No offense, just asking.

Thanks for the lead. I've got my crack team of language experts on it.>> ^cup_of_squirrel:

They're speaking Russian, at least for the most part. They're also mixing in some other language that sounds southern (Chechen? Ingush? Georgian?)

They're speaking Russian, at least for the most part. They're also mixing in some other language that sounds southern (Chechen? Ingush? Georgian?)

Are we not speaking here of threats domestic? Apples and oranges. The apple cart is TSA/DHS/US airport security. Global is irrelevant excepting as players imported may act in the theater here thus affecting our internal security considerations and measures. Again, hijacking is all but not spoken of or a consideration in current domestic efforts. With all due respect, I see no argument or disagreement with your laudable research except as to its pertinence and relevance to this discussion.
>> ^L0cky:

I totally agree that the focus should be on bombs; however globally there are more hijackings and attempted hijackings than plane bombings and attempted plane bombings.
I can only find ten successful plane bombings; none of which took off in America; and four of which were found to be perpetrated by Islamists (3 of them from Libya), including the Lockerbie bombing. In four of those incidents the bomb was in the cabin; the rest were in the cargo.
Interestingly, while checking that, I did find support for my assertion that unsolved plots and acts are usually attributed to Islamists, while solved ones usually aren't.
The Russian airplane bombings in 2004 were originally attributed to an Islamic group; but then additional terrorist attacks took place shortly afterwards and it turned out the perpetrators were actually Chechen.

>> ^chicchorea:

With all due respect, hijackings are not the primary threat as the means to accomplish such deeds have been handily remedied by fairly simply and minimally intrusive procedures and technology.
Things that go boom....

I totally agree that the focus should be on bombs; however globally there are more hijackings and attempted hijackings than plane bombings and attempted plane bombings.

I can only find ten successful plane bombings; none of which took off in America; and four of which were found to be perpetrated by Islamists (3 of them from Libya), including the Lockerbie bombing. In four of those incidents the bomb was in the cabin; the rest were in the cargo.

Interestingly, while checking that, I did find support for my assertion that unsolved plots and acts are usually attributed to Islamists, while solved ones usually aren't.

The Russian airplane bombings in 2004 were originally attributed to an Islamic group; but then additional terrorist attacks took place shortly afterwards and it turned out the perpetrators were actually Chechen.

>> ^Yogi:
>Dude...seriously?! You say shit like that and it's Not about racism. You just called one of the largest most established religions on the planet a cult.

Yes I did.

>> ^Yogi:
>You hate these people...


"These people"? hm... No.
"This religion"? Well.. No, Not really. I dont "hate" Islam either, but I don't see why Islam should be exempt from criticism, just because its a religion, and I don't accept your definition of it as a race. If its a race, and i'm a racist, just who am I supposed to hate? 20% of India? Most of the middle east? Chechens? Somalies? Indonesians? Cat Stevens?

If anyones a racist here, it would have to be those who confuse ideologies with groups of people, like calling all nazis "germans" or believing that zionism is the same as Israel, or that Israel is the same as "jewish". Its you that do not have your definitions in order, not me.

This was recently remade in Russia as the film 12. Which I really enjoyed. In the Russian version the young boy is a Chechen teenager accused of killing his Russian Military father.

The Second Chechen War, in a later phase better known as the War in the North Caucasus, was launched by the Russian Federation starting August 26, 1999, in which Russian federal forces largely recaptured the separatist region of Chechnya.

The Second Chechen War was started in response to the Invasion of Dagestan by the IIPB, and the Russian apartment bombings which Russia blamed on Chechen separatists, although no evidence linking Chechens with the bombings has been released to the public. The campaign largely reversed the outcome of the First Chechen War, in which the region gained de facto independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Although it is regarded by many as an internal conflict within the Russian Federation, the war attracted a large number of Jihadist foreign fighters.

During the initial campaign, Russian military and pro-Russian Chechen paramilitary faced Chechen separatists in open combat, but eventually seized the Chechen capital Grozny in February 2000 after a winter siege. Russia established direct rule of Chechnya in May 2000 and after the full-scale offensive, Chechen guerrilla resistance throughout the North Caucasus region continued to inflict heavy Russian casualties and challenge Russian political control over Chechnya for several more years. Some Chechen rebels also carried out terrorist attacks against civilians in Russia. These terrorist attacks, as well as widespread human rights violations by Russian and rebel forces, drew international condemnation.

Russia has severely disabled the Chechen rebel movement, although violence still occurs throughout the North Caucasus. Large-scale fighting has been replaced by guerrilla warfare and bombings targeting federal troops and forces of the regional government, with the violence more often spilling over into adjacent regions since 2005. The exact death toll from this conflict is unknown, yet estimates range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands dead or missing, mostly civilians in Chechnya. No clear figures for Russian losses are known to the public. In spite of its large amount of casualties, both Chechen wars remain largely unpublicized abroad.

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

I did a report for college on Chechen Republic. These guys have been at defacto war with russia since the mid 1800. They have been fighting for so long I bet they dont know what started the war. Other than the fact that Chechnya wanted autonomy.

The pretty girl is Makka Sagaipova, a famous Chechen singer.

Spain will also, as this declaration gives renewed hopes to the Basque separatist movement, however hopefully not to ETA.

Russia will see this as a threat because it undermines its control in the Chechen regions.

Economically I don't see how Kosovo stands to gain from this, it will rely on international aid for some time.