Lawsuits to protect Free Speech against Religious Violence?

[IJ]

I'll guess what they say about it now: it was a mistake, and they rectified it. How their moral superiority and omniscient guide permitted these obvious mistakes just recently, is a wonder to me. It's a little bit like the 9 year old bride. THAT was totally godly at the time, and now it's not. So was he wrong, or should we start taking 9 year old brides? Or do those supposedly eternal, papal infallibility type decrees evolve somehow? Wasn't there an infallible pope that thought the Earth the center of the universe? Go figure.

Yeah, and DON'T get me started on gay issues of recent import, or else I'll have to recommend Anderson Cooper's very nice verbal spanking of that school board official who figured we'd be better off if his gay pupils killed themselves and wrote so on his FB page. He does a good job saying they're not "queers," they were children, with names, and families, and he confronts McCance with their photos. Nicely done.

Oops too late. Your fault Jason!

[AAAhmed46]

I'll guess what they say about it now: it was a mistake, and they rectified it. How their moral superiority and omniscient guide permitted these obvious mistakes just recently, is a wonder to me. It's a little bit like the 9 year old bride. THAT was totally godly at the time, and now it's not. So was he wrong, or should we start taking 9 year old brides? Or do those supposedly eternal, papal infallibility type decrees evolve somehow? Wasn't there an infallible pope that thought the Earth the center of the universe? Go figure.

Yeah, and DON'T get me started on gay issues of recent import, or else I'll have to recommend Anderson Cooper's very nice verbal spanking of that school board official who figured we'd be better off if his gay pupils killed themselves and wrote so on his FB page. He does a good job saying they're not "queers," they were children, with names, and families, and he confronts McCance with their photos. Nicely done.

Oops too late. Your fault Jason!

Actually, even the medieval dudes said marrying prepubecent(yes spelling) woman is wrong. Age to them wasn't an issue but body. Now do you disagree with that? Probably, and so do I. But different perspective, and not totally against rationale. I don't subscribe to this rationale by the way.

Rationalization....yes that is a very real possibility of what that is. But hey, i don't hold this position anywhoo


As for the ghey stuff. Honestly, i don't see the debate. People pick on different folk and bully them. Sometimes because they are gay, other times because of other issues. I think yes, people are victimized for buttsex in particular as social acceptance for homosexuality still isn't complete, but the wider issue is just bullying in general. How many straight kids commit suicide too?

We should be good to eachother.

[IJ]

Yeah, all bullying is bad. It's worth pointing out, in that vein, that one of the kids never identified as gay, but was bullied as if he were. How many straight kids commit suicide? Hard to know for sure, because of issues with disclosure of the affected person's identity, and the ideology of the researchers, but I would say significantly fewer.

Oh and I'm not sure these 13+ year old children were bullied for "buttsex," to use another one of your carefully chosen terms, but for being gender nonconformist. Please say something ridiculous about religion so we can get back on track!

[Jason Rees]

Im more thick skinned than alot of muslims too, thats whats even more sad.

I won't argue.

But it's so easy to hate.

It is. Up here in Anchorage, I get to see front and center the ugliness of politics. These people, who really don't disagree on the issues, are at each others' throats because of disagreements about their chosen avatars (Murky and Miller). It's been informative and entertaining for me (I don't have a dog in this race), but the way people treat each other over politics up here... ouch.

I used to think thats what the mindset was. Honestly. But hadith was never ever really viewed as infallible. Of course, [/b][/i]many imams TREAT IT as if it's just as relevant as the quran[/b][/i], but but by their own religious sciences and academics, hadith is not infallible.

So maybe i have validity to my position

Or maybe you don't see how you're contradicting yourself. On one hand you say it isn't viewed as infallible, but on the other you say it is treated on par with the Quran (which itself is viewed as infallible). There you go again.

Did not know that. But what do the mormons have to say about that?

Oh, you can visit their website and they've got some pretty pat answers, like how later 'prophets' cleared that little mess up with timely revelations. Sound familiar?

Why not have a mormon poster come in and give some perspective.

Doesn't that sound like fun. I'm sure in no time I'll have a representative from the local tabernacle knocking on my door. Oh, and friends of mine being told they can't associate with the likes of me. Does that add a little perspective for you?

[AAAhmed46]

It is. Up here in Anchorage, I get to see front and center the ugliness of politics. These people, who really don't disagree on the issues, are at each others' throats because of disagreements about their chosen avatars (Murky and Miller). It's been informative and entertaining for me (I don't have a dog in this race), but the way people treat each other over politics up here... ouch.

Nothing wrong with getting upset(if you really care about something, you will react to it)
Just when you literally hate and antoganize the guy with the other view that it. Or cannot understand why someone would have this view that upsets you. I don't blame you for objecting to the marriage with aisha. I view it differently, but whether your or my view is accurate is what the debate is. I can't fault you for it. I can see why many people will hold this view, though i do not agree.

Or maybe you don't see how you're contradicting yourself. On one hand you say it isn't viewed as infallible, but on the other you say it is treated on par with the Quran (which itself is viewed as infallible). There you go again.

I view hadith as relevent as historical raw date, but nothing sacred. The very fact Sahih Bukhari edited, discounted many hadith shows this. Also the fact that sahih muslim continued the hunt for authentic hadith after bukhari's death confirms this. Many men continued to see what was fact/fiction in hadith for centuries. Somehow, just somehow, a group of politically influential imams threw up their hands and said "sahih bukhari and sahih muslim did all the work for us, no one needs to critique hadith anymore." Yet even THEN the view of hadith divinity was not popular. Infact, historically, many muslims, hell the majority held my view. The rise of salafi/wahabi influence in orthodox islam(Influenced by salafism doesn't mean salafi) has really changed things. As i grew older, gained some critical thinking skills, i stopped viewing hadith as a divine. Im a border line 'quran only' muslim.
I know alot of secular scholars of islam agree with me, and some don't.

This is a very very different, and very long debate, i doubt can be resolved in this forum,and has been debated my men more knowledgable than me, both secular islamic scholars and muslim scholars.

Oh, you can visit their website and they've got some pretty pat answers, like how later 'prophets' cleared that little mess up with timely revelations. Sound familiar?

Yes it does sound familiar. The difference from islam is that i got the impression that they pridict many more prophets to come, the the quran tends to be more poetically flowery and cryptic(well half of it). Though i have to read more of the book of mormon. So far just chapters. I can't exactly form a proper opinion on it unless i read teh whole thing myself

Also had an ex-mormon tell me that Joseph smith ripped off muhammeds life(or was a man inspired by god in a simlar manner depending on your perspective) but thats basically just speculation on my part, i have yet to study the religion in depth to see if this is true.

Religious websites lack the complexity of actually looking at the beliefs and thoughts of a practicing practioner of a faith. Before I had indepth conversations with practicing mormons, most of what I heard about them was media misconceptions. Also gave me perspective on some of their theology.

[

Doesn't that sound like fun. I'm sure in no time I'll have a representative from the local tabernacle knocking on my door. Oh, and friends of mine being told they can't associate with the likes of me. Does that add a little perspective for you?

From what i understand from mormons here, they told me there is a problem of clan behavior among mormons. It seems more clannish than actual religious theological issues. Afterall, arn't they heavy in missionary work? Thats pretty hard to do if you can't mingle with other faiths. Ive had mormon converts talk to me telling me they had problems with this. [/quote]

[IJ]

"As i grew older, gained some critical thinking skills, i stopped viewing hadith as a divine. Im a border line 'quran only' muslim."

So that Quran... was that... dictated by God thru Muhammed? Totally correct? Transmitted down the line without error? Or is it just inspirational / allegorical, like a lot of people view the Bible?

[AAAhmed46]

"As i grew older, gained some critical thinking skills, i stopped viewing hadith as a divine. Im a border line 'quran only' muslim."

So that Quran... was that... dictated by God thru Muhammed? Totally correct? Transmitted down the line without error? Or is it just inspirational / allegorical, like a lot of people view the Bible?

I view the quran allegorically yes, considering how the verses pertaining to belief are highly poetic.

Few actual commands, most of which can be put on 2 or 3 pages if you seperate them from the bulk of the text. The rest are almost purposefully using flowery imagary, and rarely anchored in a timeline(gives no dates or ages for Abraham/moses/Noah/Christ/David. EVen geography is highly unspecified.

That was certainly Ibn Sina's view of the quran, as well as the position of Mu'tazilism, before and after it was the official state philosophy of the Islamic empire while it was around.

[AAAhmed46]

I would like to quickly get back on sam harris: I noticed in his book, he always references how osama bin laden is motivated by theology, this is but another logical flaw i have seen. Because Bin laden's letter to the west has alot of political rants one would see from racheal maddow mixed with 'durka, durka' Also ex-al-qaeda members also seem to contridict his claims.

He also seems woefully ignorant of the powerful and terrifying presence of hindu extremism in south asia. He talks as if Jainism is the primary essense of hinduism, but jainism is as hindu to hinduism as sufism is islamic. Doesn't mean they are not true representation of the faith, just that he applies a double standard here. The only reason we don't see nearly as much hindu violence directed TOWARD THE WEST(emphasis on directed toward teh west) is different political agendas. But search up hindu extremism. I didn't have to search it to be aware of it, as I am already tied to south asian culture, and hinduism is richly tied to south asian culture.

But if you don't believe me about hindu extremism then check out this link here, one of many you can find)

http://www.proxsa.org/newsflash/part2.html

Throughout his book, there is teh assumption that the natural state of the middle east is fanatism. And unlike his rebuttal, his book(before the rebuttal) doesn't seem to be talking in hypotheticals. Maybe now he sees it like this. And according to wikileaks, fanatisism and anti-western sentiment rose up after 2003(i wonder why?:roll:) but really overall? During the 2009 attacks on Gaza. Barely 1000 people marched against it. Yet 1 million egyptions marched in sadness when an egyption pop singer killed herself.(or is it 2006? I don't remember) or even how Iran had the candle light vigil of 10 000 after 9/11. I mean pre-rebuttal harris was talking about a present time and place.
He very well was talking about an immidiate threat that needed to be treated with nukes. Harris's 'defence' against the argument that he supports these positions can be found on his website, really i read it as that he essentially admits all the charges and makes some more borderline racist/ethnocentric comments in the process, whether it really gets him off the hook is a bit of a moot point). The only thing he really said he didn't support was nuking claiming it was a hypothetical example.
And though he made a rebuttal about the nuke, he has stated he finds rationality among europian fascist parties.

(i will prove this below on fascism by hitchens echoeing my very same fears on harris)


(as hinduism is one of teh worlds oldest faiths, deep history and culture, sophisticated civilization)

I actually don't have a problem with his arguements against religious belief per say. But when he starts making comparisons between monotheism and other religious traditions and says 'look how much more civilized they are' i wonder if he is aware of what is going on in the world? I know he visited india and was enthralled by it. But i wonder if he visited gujrat or the christians villiages surrounding it? Remember that video i posted of the honour killings? Very similar to camel jokey honour killings isn't it?

I know enough about indian history and culture to know that most hindus are very good people, and hindu religion is very complex.

Arguebly one of the most complex religions in the world. I have read of so many different and POPULAR interpretations of the vedas and the gita. Reading the Ramayan and reading the Gita is highly sophisticated, the themes raised in these parables are sophisticated, teh backgrounds of charecters are complex.

Ravan for example is very complex to me. He lives a life of lust and indulgment, yet is granted power. Apparently because in his own strange and unique way, he is a very very devouted hindu.

But how is that possible? Isn't he the villian of the story?

Didn't he kidnap sita?

Very sophisticated theology, and analysis of theology. I think it's really cool. This is my honest opnion.

So im not trying to bash hinduism, just the extremists. Who are motivated for the same reasons as the muslim ones, just with bigger targets. And for all the religious rhetoric both hindu and muslim extremists spout, if you listen to the political rhetoric, between the lines it becomes clear that radicalization has social and political roots.

Why didn't harris talk about radicalization in polythiestic south asia? It very clearly exists, and to those it dislikes, is a very real threat.

But hey, the west didn't really care about islamic radicaliszation until westerners became targets. Will that be teh case with polythiestic radicals? Will harris then begin examining them?

Or is he too fascinated by far eastern spirituality to notice? He reminds alot of the muslim sufis too fascinated by their own spiritualism.

Hitchens is more scathing and actually more politically threatening than harris is in his views of the middle east.

But though Hitchens ideas are more of a political threat, he atleast is...what did i say before in this thread....consistent! Yes thats the word! And very much aware of different dimensions of the subject matter.

I would like to quickly get back on sam harris: I noticed in his book, he always references how osama bin laden is motivated by theology, this is but another logical flaw i have seen. Because Bin laden's letter to the west has alot of political rants one would see from racheal maddow mixed with 'durka, durka' Also ex-al-qaeda members also seem to contridict his claims.

He also seems woefully ignorant of the powerful and terrifying presence of hindu extremism in south asia. He talks as if Jainism is the primary essense of hinduism, but jainism is as hindu to hinduism as sufism is islamic. Doesn't mean they are not true representation of the faith, just that he applies a double standard here. The only reason we don't see nearly as much hindu violence directed TOWARD THE WEST(emphasis on directed toward teh west) is different political agendas. But search up hindu extremism. I didn't have to search it to be aware of it, as I am already tied to south asian culture, and hinduism is richly tied to south asian culture.
Throughout his book, there is teh assumption that the natural state of the middle east is fanatism. And unlike his rebuttal, his book(before the rebuttal) doesn't seem to be talking in hypotheticals. Maybe now he sees it like this. And according to wikileaks, fanatisism and anti-western sentiment rose up after 2003(i wonder why?Rolling Eyes) but really overall? During the 2009 attacks on Gaza. Barely 1000 people marched against it. Yet 1 million egyptions marched in sadness when an egyption pop singer killed herself.(or is it 2006? I don't remember) or even how Iran had the candle light vigil of 10 000 after 9/11. I mean pre-rebuttal harris was talking about a present time and place.

But if you don't believe me here is one link of many.

http://www.proxsa.org/newsflash/part2.html

(as hinduism is one of teh worlds oldest faiths, deep history and culture, sophisticated civilization)

I actually don't have a problem with his arguements against religious belief per say. But when he starts making comparisons between monotheism and other religious traditions and says 'look how much more civilized they are' i wonder if he is aware of what is going on in the world? I know he visited india and was enthralled by it. But i wonder if he visited gujrat or the christians villiages surrounding it? Remember that video i posted of the honour killings? Very similar to camel jokey honour killings isn't it?

I know enough about indian history and culture to know that most hindus are very good people, and hindu religion is very complex.

Arguebly one of the most complex religions in the world. I have read of so many different and POPULAR interpretations of the vedas and the gita. Reading the Ramayan and reading the Gita is highly sophisticated, the themes raised in these parables are sophisticated, teh backgrounds of charecters are complex.

Ravan for example is very complex to me. He lives a life of lust and indulgment, yet is granted power. Apparently because in his own strange and unique way, he is a very very devouted hindu.

But how is that possible? Isn't he the villian of the story?

Didn't he kidnap sita?

Hell the term athiesm has roots in some sects of hinduism.

To quote Wikipedia: 'Atheism (Sanskrit: nir-īśvara-vāda, lit. "statement of no Lord", "doctrine of godlessness") or disbelief in God or gods has been a historically propounded viewpoint in many of the orthodox and heterodox streams of Hindu philosophies. Generally, atheism is valid in Hinduism, but the path of the atheist is viewed as very difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.'

Very sophisticated theology, and analysis of theology. I think it's really cool. This is my honest opnion.

So im not trying to bash hinduism, just the extremists. Who are motivated for the same reasons as the muslim ones, just with bigger targets. And for all the religious rhetoric both hindu and muslim extremists spout, if you listen to the political rhetoric, between the lines it becomes clear that radicalization has social and political roots.

Why didn't harris talk about radicalization in polythiestic south asia? It very clearly exists, and to those it dislikes, is a very real threat.

But hey, the west didn't really care about islamic radicaliszation until westerners became targets. Will that be teh case with polythiestic radicals? Will harris then begin examining them?

Or is he too fascinated by far eastern spirituality to notice? He reminds alot of the muslim sufis too fascinated by their own spiritualism.

Hitchens is more scathing and actually more politically threatening than harris is in his views of the middle east.

But though Hitchens ideas are more of a political threat, he atleast is...what did i say before in this thread....consistent! Yes thats the word!

Interesting article on harris and spirituality here by a hindu athiest.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/200 ... am-harris/

Hell even Christopher Hitchens, who is very vocal in his critiques of islamic society and theology, was disturbed by harris in the above article. This article is very much promoting that radical muslims are a real threat. Yet he cannot help but mention that:

The most alarming sentences that I have read in a long time came from the pen of my fellow atheist Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, at the end of a September Los Angeles Times column upbraiding American liberals for their masochistic attitude toward Islamist totalitarianism. Harris concluded:

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization [italics mine]......

And at the end mentions:

When I read Sam Harris’s irresponsible remark that only fascists seemed to have the right line, I murmured to myself: “Not while I’m alive, they won’t.” Nor do I wish to concede that Serbo-fascist ethnic cleansing can appear more rational in retrospect than it did at the time. The Islamist threat itself may be crude, but this is an intricate cultural and political challenge that will absorb all of our energies for the rest of our lives: we are all responsible for doing our utmost as citizens as well as for demanding more imagination from our leaders.

Interesting article on harris and spirituality here by a hindu athiest. If anything, she is an ultra rationalist. But i think it's interesting that she finds an almost faith based view on sam harris's 'rational' spirituality.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/200 ... am-harris/


And a book basically totally challenging his entire thesis, involving interviews with real terrorists from terrorist networks. How he did it? I don't know.

http://www.amazon.com/Talking-Enemy-Bro ... dd_1_dp_T5

[AAAhmed46]

I know it was a long as post i posted above, but atleast give it a read, at the very least, take into account that two neo-athiest intellectuals find him a bit creepy, especially someone as respected as Hitchens. Maybe not as much as me(i have a different perspective and position from hitchens) but still creepy.

Keep in mind, he and I have totally different biases too. Infact he probably has more in common with Harris than me. Far more in common. So atleast consider this perspective. Harris is, politically, viewed as a bit of a nutter, even by the hawkish hitchens. Hell, if you read that article, hitchens even believes this will be a great demographic war and is in agreement with styn on this. (though id like to point out second and third generation muslims have alot less kids than first geneartion immigrants)

So they actually have more reason to agree than disagree.

This is an exellent presentation.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/Atran07/index.html


Unlike the left, it doesn't simply blame this on victimization and ignores the glaring fanatical religious over tones of alot of these terrorists.

But unlike the right, doesn't go 'hurr hurr, warlike demon religion! Use great force!'

It *gasp* actually talks about this as a complex issue. Also worth mentioniong is how it talks about integration in american muslims is far far greater than europe. American immigration policy for the win.

[IJ]

It's mostly a long post because it's duplicative and totally scrambled. Beyond that, it's hard to get me interested in hindu theology and allegory. I mean really, it's what, 0.4% of the population? To the rest of us it's opaque myth.

As for Harris, nope, you've got this wrong on the nuke. He's not backpedaling, he's not saying nuke today, he's not saying he wants to nuke. His ORIGINAL text is VERY clear on these points, and you're making yourself look biased on your read of that one little paragraph while you're trying to nail him for too much enthusiasm for Jainsim. I haven't read "The End of Faith," but in "Letter to a Christian Nation," he speaks of it very briefly and to make the point that while the Bible is full of bloodshed, and commands to shed blood, the central tenets of Jainsim are pretty hardcore nice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... sa_1.shtml

"Jains believe that the only way to save one's own soul is to protect every other soul, and so the most central Jain teaching, and the heart of Jain ethics, is that of ahimsa (non-violence)."

"Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being. --Jain scripture."

Thus, he hoped to make it clear to Christians who unthinkingly report that the Bible is the premier model of ethics in the world that there are others who can much better make that case, and remind them of the harm done in the name of Christianity and indeed, even at the order of the God of the Bible. I've spent about as much time on this issue as he did, and if you think he's wrong to draw this distinction with a religion which FOCUSES first and foremost on nonviolence, well, we'll never agree on anything and you're really captivated by what the precursors to Jainism did or thought. I'm not terribly interested myself; suffice to say it is hard for me to imagine a Jain extremist citing their religion as a rationale for violence.

As for his comments about the fascists, you again seem to miss his point. He says the ones speaking with the most sense about the threat of Islam in Europe are the fascists. THEN HE MOURNS THIS FACT. Agree, disagree, whatever; he's not endorsing fascism. He's saying that most people are too bound up in multi-culti to notice that very different, oppositional culture was taking root in Europe and not incorporating, and they share some crazy ideas that threaten those in the West. And that it's ok to take that on. For example, if I were France, I wouldn't want huge Muslim populations immigrating anymore (and here I'm referring 100% to ideology and 0% to race). In fact I'd be inclined to shut it down completely, given that with the higher Muslim birth rate, they're going to be bred out of their own country in not too long anyway. I know that populations shift and merge but nations will say they don't want people hostile to their culture taking over from within. Lots of people are so busy being egalitarian and pro-freedom about the matter they're not recognizing the very threat to those values they face. The fascists have always been good with xenophobia so they're banging the drum. Neither Harris nor Hitchens are fond of this situation; both of them are 100% against fascism from all I've read. Cool?

The book you mention on terrorists sounds interesting and I may check it out. The blurbs, however, leave a void there--they say it's not that much political or religious fervor as a band of brothers willing to die for each other. Yeah, well, we've had close knit communities all over the world and throughout time and they don't all run around blowing up shopping malls and stuff. Where's the beef, yo?

[IJ]

So back to the Quran, if I may... it's allegorical, largely, to you... so what exactly do you feel are the solid truths that come out of it? How did you determine you were going to pick this book/faith to believe in, instead of another? And how do you process all those attacks on Islam from people like Ibn Warraq and maintain that faith? If the book is metaphor, where's the real stuff? Why'd God pick this one dude in the desert to be his final prophet on Earth, instead of, say, Joseph Smith, and how do you know you've got the right one? Or maybe it's an E-meter that could bring you closer to truth?

I'm just trying to figure out this process which for me seems to largely come from what our parents, to a lesser extent our village, teach us. Where do you apply those "critical thinking skills" aside from kicking out most Hadith, which seems like a really swell idea since (per the atheist screeds I read, but they were Muslim in origin) they seem to have been largely cherry picked from a vast collection of material of dubious ancestry?

[AAAhmed46]

So back to the Quran, if I may... it's allegorical, largely, to you... so what exactly do you feel are the solid truths that come out of it?

Don't see how an unlettered bedouin in the dessert can come up with such layared tales filled with deep, multiple themes. Why did monothiesm stick out in his head more than anyone else? Also the descriptions of embryology impressed me alot as well. How the hell could he describe the microscopic processes of fetal development like that? No matter how smart of an illiterate he was, no way he could know that. Can't be a freak epiliptic seisure as well. That and other things, not strangly miraculous or anything, but too proper, too ordered to be siezures or the thoughts gathered from legends told by dessert people. Especially the beginning, when it starts talking about quesitoning, about asking questions. How it constantly asks the reader to ask questions about the whole world around them, and it's beuty and complexity, and how can they not believe in god. Though he wasn't wealthy, he was of noble birth, of high birth, in a tribe and culture extremely proud of bloodlines and race, lots of racial pride. Yet there is constant berating of tribalism and racism. Throughout the seerah, mohammed raged against tribalism and racial divides, against racism shown toward Bilal and other black muslims and ex slaves.

In all of mecca, there were only 15 men who were literate, muhammed was not one of them, and yet he created a book that changed arabic poetry, arabic language and communication it self. It's very complex. While great poets existed in this illiterate society, how does someone with little linguistic skill produce this? Even fluid speakers and readers of arabic find it a complex read.

How did you determine you were going to pick this book/faith to believe in, instead of another?

I was a closet athiest for a while in highschool and a bit afterward. I was very interested in buddhism however. This is probably going to make you have fits, but i found Islam was the only one that really called upon rationality. I began reading the quran after i basically decided to abandon faith due to family. Also looked at christianity a bit. I didn't buy into the trinity with christianity, really bugged me, and alot of theology seemed the result of commentary/later writers than what jesus actually said and did, which was cool. The whole concept was about faith, about accepting whether jesus died for my sins bugged me. Lets say I don't know the teachings of christ and think it's a devil religion. I die, will i go to hell because i believe different? Even though i lived a pure life? I viewed Islam much the same way, which was one of the main reasons why i really became a closet agnostic. I read the quran however and found that it said 'jews, christians, Sabians, and anyone else who believed in a single god will see paradise'. The belief that you must be a muslim to see paradise is rooted in hadith. You know my views on that.
What still kept me away from believing was the hadith. Either things in there made muhammed look bipolar or that it would contridict the quran. my parents were of teh school fo thought that bukhari and muslim are almost as good as the quran. So i couldn't buy it.
The moment i read literature(ironically by critics attacking islam) made me realize that hadith has major schorarly flaws, for all it's sophistication in compilation done by bukhari and muslim. So i considered islam again, and looked at the history. Which revealed that the so called unchanging religion, had a very fluid tradition. Very powerful intellectual streaks inspired by religion.
Buddhism was cool, but seemed too complex for me to feel inspired.

And how do you process all those attacks on Islam from people like Ibn Warraq and maintain that faith?

Ibn warraq was basically the first anti-muslim writer i saw. Basically, i knew the religion probably just as well as he did(he is a psychologist, not a theologian) I don't blame him for living, considering religion was thrust upon him in a strange way.

His main book is basically quoting single versus of teh quran, which i read in it's entirety, so i knew that Warraq wasn't really being honest. Also would do his own tafsir, and then say this is what scholars teach, when eitehr they don't or he misunderstood them. Even hadith, which is easy to find teachings that contridict western liberal morality, was often misquoted or misunderstood.

Plus when you have anthropologists and secular theologians of islam basically calling his work a load of crap, that also gives clarity. Like i said, bernard lewis agrees with a little of what Warraq says as he is a critic of islam. But pretty disagrees with the bulk of it. A psychologists shouldn't think he knows more than ph'ds in the middle east. I also found, and you may think lying when i say this.

If the book is metaphor, where's the real stuff?

only a few specific commands, usually dealing with the time and place. If a book is to be timeless, it cannot be matter of fact, as languages change and therefore clarity changes, it also keeps it anchored in one time or place, as life changes. But allegory and themes hidden in stories are timeless, and can be understood on layman terms or intellectual terms. General principles las throughout the ages far more than specific commands. Which get outdated.
Why'd God pick this one dude in the desert to be his final prophet on Earth, instead of, say, Joseph Smith, and how do you know you've got the right one? Or maybe it's an E-meter that could bring you closer to truth?[/quote]
If it were in rome, if mohamulas was picked out of rome, teaching about one god, withotu partners or caste or race, of rebelling against an oppressive set of social norms, he would have been killed the moment he began preaching, even in private. If god picked a man in the roman empire, he would get killed.

The arabs had many faults, but were decentralized. So any anti-authoritarian teachings would be less likely to have a bunch of roman soldiers coming in and slitting his throat. Also, they had cultural faults, but the sense honour they had made them ideal to be a vehicle to spread this message. Hence where the concrete, matter of fact parts of the quran come, to help develope, structure, and mobalize a scattered culture into a form of civilization.

Im aware that i could be wrong about everything i posted above, and therefore, though i don't like to admit it, there is a very real possibliliy i could be totall wrong and barking up the wrong tree. I find this is close to the 'truth' but im aware it may not be 'the' truth. Or may have half truths. Or may mean nothing. perhaps life has no meaning, no god.

I'm just trying to figure out this process which for me seems to largely come from what our parents, to a lesser extent our village, teach us. Where do you apply those "critical thinking skills" aside from kicking out most Hadith, which seems like a really swell idea since (per the atheist screeds I read, but they were Muslim in origin) they seem to have been largely cherry picked from a vast collection of material of dubious ancestry?

I understand what your driving at.

[AAAhmed46]

It's mostly a long post because it's duplicative and totally scrambled. Beyond that, it's hard to get me interested in hindu theology and allegory. I mean really, it's what, 0.4% of the population? To the rest of us it's opaque myth.

There are like a billion people in india right now. I think they are a singificant force, with significant influence. They are also becoming a world power, politically powerful. Go on youtube and check out some of the stuff on there.

I got ADHD dude, i think scrambled. Im not joking either. So i write scrambled.

As for Harris, nope, you've got this wrong on the nuke. He's not backpedaling, he's not saying nuke today, he's not saying he wants to nuke. His ORIGINAL text is VERY clear on these points

But the whole book is very warlike in it's content overall. He misquotes the pew polls saying that the poll show muslims support suicide bombings and war with the west(even though question was under THREAT do you support suicide bombings) and brands entire cultures as if most are barbarains, assumes taht the stoning and burkas are a norm. Even in muslim countries, unless forced by law, most woman don't wear the hijab? It's a noticbel minority but most don't. Or that, though more common in muslim countries, stonings are still very rare? He grossly over generalizes. And thats just half of it. He blames it all on theology. Huh? Blames it all on theology? Like it's that simple? Come on. You yourself admitted radicalization isn't just about religion. It's the vehicle, but the engine is somethign else.

and you're making yourself look biased on your read of that one little paragraph while you're trying to nail him for too much enthusiasm for Jainsim. I haven't read "The End of Faith," but in "Letter to a Christian Nation," he speaks of it very briefly and to make the point that while the Bible is full of bloodshed, and commands to shed blood, the central tenets of Jainsim are pretty hardcore nice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... sa_1.shtml

"Jains believe that the only way to save one's own soul is to protect every other soul, and so the most central Jain teaching, and the heart of Jain ethics, is that of ahimsa (non-violence)."

"Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being. --Jain scripture."

Yet Harris ignores the fact that Jainism also has a self defense doctrine. In his debates with Reza Aslan, he kept saying 'okay, so the quran teaches war in self defense. But it can be twisted to do oppression in self defense. Show me Buddhist, or Jain oppression"
But Jainism has a self defense docterine. And now lets compare the Jain population to the population of jews and christians, and the histories. Yes jain history is clearner than jewish, christian, and islamic history, but they have historically been small, insignificant politically when compared to the other religions. So that comparison doesn't work. It's spawned from hinduism like sufism is spawned from islam. ANd guess how much sufi terrorism there is? Basically none. WHy doesn't he mention sufism? His example doesn't actually apply. As for buddhist, i posted on that before.

And when christians and muslims post peaceful versus from the quran and bible, guys like crazy point out to christians that the old testament is batshit crazy, and that the New testament comes from there, therefore christianity is violent, and then misquote the quran saying it teaches otherwise, that it promotes violence.

But i can simply say Jainism is rooted in hindu theology, and therefore can be said to have a violent tradition. It's all very much about Bias, mine, yours, and harris's

Thus, he hoped to make it clear to Christians who unthinkingly report that the Bible is the premier model of ethics in the world that there are others who can much better make that case, and remind them of the harm done in the name of Christianity and indeed, even at the order of the God of the Bible. I've spent about as much time on this issue as he did, and if you think he's wrong to draw this distinction with a religion which FOCUSES first and foremost on nonviolence, well, we'll never agree on anything and you're really captivated by what the precursors to Jainism did or thought.

But they are allowed to defend themselves, harris didn't mention this. In islam, you can't hurt someone unless they try to hurt you.

I fail to see the difference.

I'm not terribly interested myself; suffice to say it is hard for me to imagine a Jain extremist citing their religion as a rationale for violence.

Just as it's hard for me to Imagine a sufi extremists. Im ev

As for his comments about the fascists, you again seem to miss his point. He says the ones speaking with the most sense about the threat of Islam in Europe are the fascists. THEN HE MOURNS THIS FACT. Agree, disagree, whatever; he's not endorsing fascism.

Even though he supports Geert Wilders and the BNP? For someone not supporting fascism, he seems to support figures within those parties.

He's saying that most people are too bound up in multi-culti to notice that very different, oppositional culture was taking root in Europe and not incorporating, and they share some crazy ideas that threaten those in the West.

You think this about republicans too?

And that it's ok to take that on. For example, if I were France, I wouldn't want huge Muslim populations immigrating anymore (and here I'm referring 100% to ideology and 0% to race).
In fact I'd be inclined to shut it down completely, given that with the higher Muslim birth rate, they're going to be bred out of their own country in not too long anyway.

Glad to know you believe a myth

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion ... aphics.asp

Also, most of the birth rates are really only talking about first generation. Second generation tends to be far less willing to reproduce.

I know that populations shift and merge but nations will say they don't want people hostile to their culture taking over from within. Lots of people are so busy being egalitarian and pro-freedom about the matter they're not recognizing the very threat to those values they face. The fascists have always been good with xenophobia so they're banging the drum. Neither Harris nor Hitchens are fond of this situation; both of them are 100% against fascism from all I've read. Cool?

Unlike Harris, Hitchens didn't endorse any of these fascist candidates. And unlike harris, Hitchens doesn't think the threat of radicalism is inherent to anyone who follows islam. Oh yes, he supported mark Steyns arguement. But notice his critiques as well.

The book you mention on terrorists sounds interesting and I may check it out. The blurbs, however, leave a void there--they say it's not that much political or religious fervor as a band of brothers willing to die for each other. Yeah, well, we've had close knit communities all over the world and throughout time and they don't all run around blowing up shopping malls and stuff. Where's the beef, yo?

Based on what ive read about what was found in wikileaks and stuff before that, thats actually exactly what you guys do.

Seemed very obviously a camera to me....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KANYo8Jv64E



Just in a far more efficient and safe manner. Why use a suicide vest when you can launch a missle?


Look at this horrible fanatic!



Sniff...our troops. The bibles they hold show a lack of fanatical thinking ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki17673d_Qk

No actual killing, but you can see why some people would get a bit pissed off at anglo saxon white people. Group behavior...us or them.....




Because you don't live in a dictatorship where anti-western fanatics supply most of your social services. BTW sayyid Qutb was greatly influence by enlightenment philosophers. I guess voltaire teaches religious extremism, wait, didn't he hate islam? Oh noes....
Don't beleive me?

http://abdurrahman.org/jihad/thewahhabimyth.pdf

I don't agree with everything in this book, but it does an exellent job documentiing the secular philosophical roots of Qutbs philosophy. And if you know anything about qutb, his writing is the basis of osama bin laden's ideology.

I wonder why harris never mentioned qutb or his secular nationalistic influences?


Not as simple as harris says it is. That my biggest beef with him. He thinks it's so simple. "cuz the theology says so hurr hurr" yeah...no. And even his buddy hitchens doesn't think so, based on how hitchens often mentions political rage.

[AAAhmed46]

Just to point out, i doubt most american troops behave like this or do those things as a norm, as regular behavior. I highly doubt it.

But if me giving the outward appearance of generalizing western soldiers bothers some of you because it generalizes a large group of guys who follow a certain loose ideology(many join out of nationalism? Serving the country?) in shitty situations, how much worse is it to do the same to an entire religious culture?

[Jason Rees]

Nothing wrong with getting upset(if you really care about something, you will react to it) Just when you literally hate and antagonize the guy with the other view that it. Or cannot understand why someone would have this view that upsets you. I don't blame you for objecting to the marriage with aisha. I view it differently, but whether your or my view is accurate is what the debate is. I can't fault you for it. I can see why many people will hold this view, though i do not agree.

So we don't agree that Muhammed, a failed merchant, married a 9-year old girl, one source I have putting her actually at 7 years old (The Age of Faith, by Will Durant). That you say it was humanitarian to marry her, when as far as I know, even in those barbaric days, one could adopt children instead of marrying them.

We probably don't agree that he killed 300 jews because they wouldn't acknowledge him as the Messiah (in fact, they laughed in his face because he clearly didn't know what he was talking about regarding the Hebrew faith). That in 610 he was over the hill, and having a mid-life crisis, he claimed to his wife that Gabriel visited him in a dream while he napped in a cave. That he displayed fits that can be easily seen as epileptic seizures. That he appropriated Kaaba worship as a means to bypass the authority of the religious leaders of Mecca. That instead of feeding the masses that followed him with his own provisions, he raided passing caravans.

We also probably don't agree that he had Asma, a Medinese poetess, assassinated. That he had Afak, a Jew convert, assassinated for writing satire about him. That he had Kab ibn al-Ashraf, a converted Jewish Medinese poet assassinated, and thanked Allah when the man's head was laid at his feet. That he expelled 700 jews from Medina with only the shirts on their backs, and allowed his followers to loot their property. That he executed 600 more Jewish men for daring to defend themselves, and sold their wives and children into slavery.

Mohammed was a charlatan, a fraud, and a monster. I compare this man to Joseph Smith, and would gladly take the latter. I compare both their behaviors to Jesus, and is it any wonder who I would more willingly follow?

So far just chapters. I can't exactly form a proper opinion on it unless i read teh whole thing myself Also had an ex-mormon tell me that Joseph smith ripped off muhammeds life(or was a man inspired by god in a simlar manner depending on your perspective) but thats basically just speculation on my part, i have yet to study the religion in depth to see if this is true.

Haha... Smith not only copied from Mohammed's life, he copied chapters of the Bible almost entire. He has characters in the Book of Mormon quoting scripture they could not have read, and claiming they said it first. He copied the ideas of an unpublished novel, creating a make-believe nation of Native Americans, claiming they were descended from Middle-Eastern peoples transported over the ocean... that they had a massive war and were wiped out, but not before being visited by none other than Jesus himself... and that it was all recorded on golden plates that Joseph Smith found, and no one else ever saw. Mark Twain made a jest of how much terminology used in the Book of Mormon was straight out of the King James.

Before I had indepth conversations with practicing mormons, most of what I heard about them was media misconceptions. Also gave me perspective on some of their theology.

Mormons have weekly training in speaking to people about their beliefs... mostly in trying to make their beliefs seem normal and mainstream Christian. Their missionary work doesn't involve mingling. It's people working in pairs, working like door-to-door salesmen. That's in fact a very apt description. Door-to-door salesmen, selling 'salvation.'