Does the Quran condone or command the kind of violence we see from militant Islam? The answer is yes. The argument seems to be that the extremists are following a radical interpretation of the Quran, but the truth is that their interpretation is normative when you take the history of Islam into consideration. Violence and war has been at the roots of Islam since its inception. It is the modern, liberal interpretation of the Quran which is the aberration. So, whether some or most Muslims disregard, ignore or are ignorant of what the Quran tells them to do isn't the real issue; that doesn't tell us about what is at the core of Islam.

That's not what he's saying at all.

The bible, or the Quran, or many other texts, just like historical events as they were, or works of literature, or other even historical texts as complex as this often have contradictory ideas. The US constitution is founded on a set of beliefs and ideas that almost all of us subscribe to, yet there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, pragmatists, etc. all deriving very different ideas from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and more. The reason this is true is because those values often come into conflict, and can outright contradict each other. Freedom vs security, equality vs prosperity, I could go on and on.

With the Bible, you have Catholics, Protestants, subdivided into a plethora of different religions in their own right under the umbrella of Christianity. You have the running joke even within Catholicism that American Catholics aren't really Catholics at all. Not only do different Christians interpret the bible differently, the amount they count on the bible varies between fundamentalists like Jehovah's Witnesses who take the bible extremely literally to extremely secular Christians who have absolutely no problem discarding any part of Christian doctrines when scientific evidence proves otherwise.

You have Christians who act as saintly as Mother Theresa to mobsters.

That's just Christianity. There are extremist Islamic groups that sound more like the Westboro Baptist Church than other Muslims.

But within Christianity, there's "honor thy mother and thy father" and "thou shall not kill". What if your parents are murderers?

That's a crude, and obvious example of conflicting values, but the 10 commandments are simple rules that don't completely resolve every situation.

What's stupid is to believe that you can know about a person's specific ideology just by their religion. Does their religion play a role in their ideology? Absolutely, but how it impacted their ideology has much more to do with their experiences, their natural tendancies, etc. than necessarily their religion. If you grew up in a mob family, honor thy mother and father was more likely the lesson you took from the Bible than thou shall not kill.

And if you look around you, this is plainly obvious. Even look within yourself. We're all a melting pot of lessons and ideas we've learned from school, personal life experiences, our religious beliefs, our parents, our socio-economic backgrounds, our friends, etc. That's why you are different from everyone of your religion, your friends, who you went to school with, your socioeconomic class, etc.

To understand Iran you have to understand that it is a theocracy, and everything its leaders do is driven by their radical interpretation of the Qurans end time scenario. The supreme leader believes he is appointed by allah to usher in their version of the Messiah, a figure they call the "Mahdi". They believe that when the Mahdi comes he will conquer the world and institute worldwide shariah law. Iran will never negotiate; it is preparing for armeggedon.

http://videosift.com/video/Why-Iran-hates-us

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one. This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

Your argument eats itself. If there aren't any absolute laws of logic (including that one), then there are no rules period, and thus no logic. If there is no such thing as logic then I could say "The cucumber faints west in the umbrage" and it would be an entirely valid response to anything you say. Yet you continue to make absolute statements like:

"All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction."

"This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications"

"you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective"

The sea cucumber faints west in the umbrage, my friend.

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)

No, I can't 100 percent prove I am not actually a circus peanut dreaming I'm a man, but it doesn't matter what I can prove to you. What matters is what is true. You have absolute freedom to live in total denial of reality if you want to, but reality isn't what we dictate it is. Just because you have no way of figuring it out doesn't mean no one does. The one who does have it figured out is God, because He created it. Because He is God He can make us absolutely certain of who He is and what He wants from us, transcending all physical or mental rationale.

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

If everything is permitted then it is equally valid not to permit, which means you have no argument. Your way isn't better than any other way according to your logic so all that you can argue is that you prefer it.

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

I can't prove God exists to you, but He can. God isn't hiding from you; He has been knocking on your door your entire life. It's your choice whether you want to open the door, but you are going to meet Him one day regardless of what you choose.

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

I was created before I had a mind. The Universe has a beginning, it was created, and the Creator is the judge.

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.),

The Catholics borrowed those from the Pagans..you won't find those in the bible.

the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

Sources?

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which..

Let's see some sources..

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))

I know exactly what it is and I am very familar with it.

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)

Abraham is the father of the Jewish people and he worshiped the LORD.

I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)

Because I know Him personally and His Spirit lives within me.

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?

To be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Therefore there is no Christianity without Him. He is the only way to know God:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

He wasn't pointing to Himself, He was pointing to God.

This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.

This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

You do realize that the word son and the word sun, in hebrew or in egyptian, aren't even remotely similar don't you? The word Christ does mean the anointed one, that is what the Messiah is. Jesus *is* the Christ. In regards to Horus being Christ, and a lot of other things you said, please take a look at this:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#horus

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.

Read the gospel of John and pray to God and ask Him to help you understand it.

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment.

John the baptist said he wasn't the Messiah and Simon was outdone by Philip.

I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).

The missing part of this theory is the explanation for the empty tomb.

Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

The quran isn't accurate, but if you read the Old Testament without humanistic glasses on, you'll find it was the humans who were malevolent and God was who long suffering with them.

@ shinyblurry

This had already turned into an essay and I didn't want to take up even more room by quoting you verbatim so I've tried to break it down to save space.



1. "Except that?"

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one.
This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

2. "Is that absolutely true?"

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)


3. "Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity."

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

As for the other bits

A. "The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all....."

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.), the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which............

Pagan & Gnostic traditions are deeply intertwined to the point where one could consider many examples to be one and the same. Mithraism would be one such example. Pagan just means many Gods/worship of nature & archetypes in the human psyche. Mithraism fulfils this definition but it also fulfils the Gnostic one i.e. it teaches that one finds god of and within oneself, not as an external force, or indeed a force which is separate from oneself.

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))


B. "Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that."

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)


C. "What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself."


I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)


D. "The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity."

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?
This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.
This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.


E. "The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great."

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment. I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).
Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

(I hope that made sense towards the end, getting very late & tired here...)

I love how such a narrow clip provokes such wide-ranging discussion here on the Sift. I think the clip itself raises two central questions:
1) Is Islam - in this point in history - more dangerous a religious ideology than the others, and
2) Is such a question/comparison even relevant? Or perhaps "promotes Islamic hatred" as the douchebag facing Maher seems to think?

To 1), I've argued above that yes, it is. as for 2), raised mostly by the commenters here, I would have to say "no, but" to both. Religious (and non-religious) ideologies should be strongly and non-violently denounced whenever/wherever they do harm. In the US, for example, Christianity does way more harm (to women's/gay's/atheist's rights, to education, etc.) than Islam does, but neither excuses/diminishes the evil done by the other. The "but" would be for when people get accused of discrimination and "islamophobia" when calling out the evils of Islam.
The necessity of the second "but" is illustrated by @shinyblurry's comment: there is always the danger of right-wing and/or Christian fundamentalists taking criticism of Islam to be a defense/validation of their own strain of wrong/dangerous BS and/or racisms (to be fair, sb only exhibits the former). This is inevitable, and should not stop people from criticising/denouncing unethical ideologies, nor should it prompt amalgamation of "criticising Islam" with "hating the for'ners/ragheads/Muslims".

Beyond the subject of the video itself, the correlation between poor socio-politico-economico-etc. status and the adherence to extremes, a point well-made by @Babymech, @Yogi and others is an important factor in the higher numbers of "Islamist evil" worldwide, one that I am well aware of. There is no better way of turning whole populations to fundamentalist extremes (or at least worse ones than they had before; let's not fall into the "noble savage" fallacy) than by meddling with their politics and then bombing the hell out of them. The danger is to go to the extreme of excluding the very nature of those fundamentals from the picture, which is just as simplistic and false as is blaming them exclusively.

Moreover, I always shudder at the left-wing strain of argumentation which puts ALL the blame on the Western invaders, (edit: 19-20th c.) colonisation and co. This view relies heavily on the "noble savage" form of racism, which assumes that only "White people/Westerners/Judeo-Christians" can wreak political/social havoc in the lands of those poor, innocent "Brown people/Muslims" (those two often being conflated). Having lived in Africa for 5 years I have a knee-jerk reaction to this kind of self-centered guilt-tripping, which deprives the "Brown/Black people" of one aspect of human nature: the ability to be evil, to fuck themselves up without any help from the "West". They can, and they do.

This tangent may seem irrelevant here, but the reason I bring it up is because that it is this sentiment that is behind much of this "Islamophobe" name-calling in the US and Europe, and behind the difficulty many "Westerners" have in bare-facedly criticising Islam, when they often have no such difficulty with their "home"-religion, Christianity.

@aaronfr raises the problem of how to go about denouncing an unethical set of beliefs, and gives several good examples of how not to (it is noteworthy that the only example of violent action is one taken by other religious people; I have yet to hear of atheists using anything other than words and pictures to make their point). Hitchens’ endorsement of the Iraq war lowered my esteem for him greatly (somewhat saved by the fact that his stance on this was of no influence to anyone, contrary to his huge effort against the evils of religion), but it is noteworthy that he and Harris are the most criticised (and the least influential) when they hold such positions.
On the side of the religious, however, it is often the crazy fundies who are the loudest and, in certain areas (with the aid of socio-etc factors of course) the most influential. And they have, especially in the Quran and the life of M., a reliable and divine source of hate/violence-mongering.

As you say, peace and prosperity are some of the best deterrents to religious extremism and unethical behaviour (but not solely; cf: the US, Saudi Arabia and co.) This does not render unnecessary denouncing the unethical nature of Islam, Christianity, etc. As noted above, the negative effects of religion are still felt in relatively peaceful and prosperous nations today (in France, for example, homophobes of Christian, Muslim and possibly Jewish faiths are causing a significant rise in homophobic violence ever since the gay-marriage hearings).

So long as the distinction between "Islam(/religious ideology)" and "Muslim(/person)" remains clear, we should be free to criticise and denounce the former to our hearts content. (Note how "Islamophobia" shits all over that distinction; one of the many reasons that term should never be uttered unironically).

_{My apologies for the dissertation-length comment}

While I find it intriguing that Bill Maher is defending Christianity in this clip, I find it even more intriguing that @hpqp is defending Maher defending Christianity in this clip. I double-checked to see if the apocalypse had begun before writing this post.

That said, I would like to interject a very basic fact, which is that immoral and corrupt behavior is natural to humans, regardless of what belief system they might claim. Therefore we must evaluate any particular belief system by what it teaches (and ultimately on truth):

If you want to evaluate Islam, look at the Quran. The reason there is radicalized Islam is because the Quran commands holy war against nonbelievers, especially Jews and Christians. It commands them to be murdered and says that even the rocks and trees will cry out against them. I am not condemning Muslims for being Muslim, but I will say that the Quran teaches them things which are contrary to the will of God. 200 hundred thousand Christians are martyred every year, many of them by Muslim extremists.

If you want to evaluate Christianity, look at the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles. If everyone followed what Jesus taught, there would be no violence at all. There would be harmony between the nations, the poor would be fed, clothed and sheltered, and everyone would love one another.

I noticed someone pointed out that the bible teaches that anyone practicing certain sins should be killed. Yes, that was the law in Israel for that particular time, but that was under the Old Covenant between God and the Jews. God made a New Covenant with the entire world through Jesus Christ which does not include those laws.

God bless

@RedSky I would add that the Jewish laws of Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc. are the foundations for Sharia law, but that most Christians throughout history see Jesus as having repudiated Jewish law (this is of course a question of interpretation), causing it to have "lived on" almost exclusively in its Islamic form. I still hold that as far as fundamentals go, the Quran and life of Mohammed are somewhat more easily used as unequivocal justification for violence than the New Testament and Jesus. (I would reference gorillaman's comment, but... see below)

I'm glad you brought Indonesia into the picture, as it is a good example of my argument. It may be the most populated muslim country, but it has repeatedly refused to let its central gvt be encroached upon by Islam, i.e. to become an Islamic state or espouse Sharia (despite the pressure from noisy fundamentalists).
In the one part of the country where Sharia is allowed to be enforced, Aceh, you get the same amount of unethical conduct and discrimination/violence towards women, homosexuals, non-jilbab-wearers, "adulterers" etc as you'd expect in the meanest of the Islamic states. And where do they find those discriminatory laws and the "divine" authority to enforce them? The Quran of course.

@gorillaman You make a few salient points (about the life/example of M. and the fact that, unlike The Bible, the Quran is the work of one author, alive at the time of the religion's birth) but you lose all credibility by
a) using a homophobic slur as a pejorative in your first line and
b) making gross (and false) generalisations, notably the all-caps
"THIS IS WHAT ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE" which is so easily demonstrably false (simply ask the nearest muslim). If it had read "this is what fundamentalist muslims believe" or even "this is what all muslims should believe if they want to honestly hold that the Quran is the perfect word of God" then you would be a bit closer to reality.
Finally, the hyperbole of your last paragraph does not help your credibility either. I am as antitheist as one can be, and the gross demonisation of religious believers (aka fellow human beings) as criminals and inhumane, ethic-less zombies not only made me shake my head sadly, it also reminded me of how religious extremists depict atheists.

@Babymech You do know that most of the Islamist terrorist attacks were perpetrated by middle-to-upper-class, well-to-do educated men, not poor and desperate Jean Valjeans, right?
The reason I pointed to your first comment as one of the "ignorant extremes" of attitude towards Islam and violence is that, the way I read it, it illustrated the common rebuttal that often comes from the far-left when a terrorist/mass-murderer is found out to be a Muslim extremist: "it must be other political/socio-economical factors, it can't be plain old religious fanaticism" or "it's our fault for waging war on them". While I agree that the US should never have gone a-warring in the ME, it's often a false equivalence and ignorant simplification to exclude or minimise the religious factor. In hindsight it was maybe rash of me to read that much into your comment, but I hope I have made clear what I meant.

As for Maher's stance that Islam is (in this point in history, as he stresses) worse than Christianity: for my opinion see above, and feel free to refute my "argumentum ad comparatio" to support your disagreement.

Tremendous amount of ignorance in here; not the faggoty liberal 'being a meanie' ignorance, but the dictionary definition 'you don't know what the fuck you're talking about' ignorance.

There's very little room for multiple interpretations of Islam. The Qur'an was written by a single (insane) author; with clear instructions on how to interpret it - literally; and how to resolve any inconsistencies within the text - the chronologically later passage supercedes the earlier.

The various Islamic sects differ over the authenticity of the Hadith, accounts of Momo's opinions and behaviour, which they are expected to emulate. None of them dispute the authority or the text of the Qur'an, which they imagine to be the infallible word of god.

There are peaceful, conciliatory passages in the Qur'an; which generally date from early in Muhammad's career, when he wasn't so secure in his position that he could afford to be a total cunt to non-believers. There are violent, xenophobic passages in the Qur'an; which generally date from later in Muhammad's career, when his success as a warlord left him far better placed to be a total cunt to non-believers. The chronologically later passages supercede the earlier.

The favorite example is At-Tawbah 5, the 'Verse of the Sword'; from the chronologically penultimate surah of the Qur'an it scrubs out any earlier peaceful passages by commanding that Muslims:

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"

THIS IS WHAT ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE

There's a peculiar general tendency to conflate the violent historical practice of other religions, like Christianity, with the actual scriptural commandment to violence of Islam. These are not equivalent. In any case the big M positioned Islam as a continuation and successor of Christianity and Judaism, admitting the validity of their prophets and texts, so it has to inherit their crimes as well.

Ultimately, all the religious are criminals. In abandoning reason and responsibility for their own actions, in turning over their volition to the dictates of invisible spirits, they have disposed of ethics and their own humanity.

As moderate as American Christians have been?>> ^A10anis:

So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.

>> ^messenger:

You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?
And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:
So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.


I suggest you read my comment again, slowly. Far from putting words in their mouths, I pose the legitimate question; "how would they characterize islam?" Please observe the question mark which, funnily enough, denotes a question NOT a statement. However, they certainly DID suggest what their answer would be. My inference is based upon their demeanor of derision and incredulity at anything said by Dooley, and the fact that they openly condemn him as a war monger. The two comments that I said were "extreme" and "ridiculous," were just that. The other comments made by Dooley were legitimate. Your Brevik comment is absurd and, as such, is not worth commenting on. As for you comparing islam with christianity? What are you talking about? I am an atheist and deride ALL myths. However, in defence of Christianity; When was the last Christian suicide bomber? When was the last time Christians flew planes into buildings? When was the last time a Christian stoned a woman to death or carried out an "honour" killing, or hung gays from a crane? When was the last time a christian beheaded a non-believer, etc, etc? Comparing the two is ignorant and intellectual laziness. If by xenophobic you mean I am afraid of those who wish to radically change our lives and drag us back to the bronze age, then yes, I am very afraid. Islam is an insidious threat, one we ignore at our peril. Finally, If you wish clarification on any other points that you don't understand, I will happily explain them.

You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?

And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:

So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.

So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.

I'll just respond to these in bulk, since it's quite a pile of manure.

The following state things happened that never happened:

>> ^lantern53:

First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.


The following he wasn't the first to do, or wouldn't have been if it weren't also part of the block above:

>> ^lantern53:

First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law a duly passed Act of Congress.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect.
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to take a 17 day vacation.


Many of these he not only wasn't the first to do, they were things Bush did when he was in office. Some, like "arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it" and "require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party" happened back when the founding fathers were still alive.

Let's see, what's left?

>> ^lantern53:

First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.


There's a lot wrong with this one. First, it wasn't a trillion dollars. Second, "the President" didn't spend it. Third, "shovel-ready" was a term to describe projects that could begin work sooner rather than later, and amazingly enough, those existed. Fourth, this wasn't a "first" -- the New Deal was bigger when you adjust for inflation. Fifth, it was a big help to our sagging economy, and we should've done a second round of it.

But I do agree, the President deserves credit for getting the stimulus passed. So does the President -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the stimulus) is featured prominently in the video above.

>> ^lantern53:

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.


That's because Republicans in Congress came within seconds of forcing the US to default on its debt.

>> ^lantern53:

First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.


No argument from me on this one. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>> ^lantern53:

First President to repeat the Holy Quran tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.


I suspect if we check the record really carefully we can find Bush (Jr. or Sr.) saying something similar, but in any case is this supposed to be a bad thing?

President Obama's record is one he should be proud of. I was hoping he'd be able to do more, but honestly I underestimated the totally craven hostile bullshit that having a black Democrat in the White House brought out of the Confederacy. Excuse me, I mean the "Republican party."

Did they mention these?

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to repeat the Holy Quran tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
First President to take a 17 day vacation.