Bill Maher and Sam Harris arguing with Ben Affleck about Islam

What on earth are you talking about - show me where you get that? If it's about Sharia law, then obviously you are being very loose with your definitions here.

By the way, PEW has another survey just for you:

 

If I'm reading that chart correctly the data is taken from only those who favor sharia law. So it would be difficult to determine the actual percentage of Muslims in those countries that accept the death penalty for apostasy since it doesn't take into consideration Muslims who don't want Sharia lawand it also doesn't show the % of Muslims that favor or don't favor sharia law.

 

I've appreciated your insight on this topic wherever you've chosen to involve yourself, dmc89. It's a personal thing with me. I understand things by finding a thread of humanity that I can recognize and connect to.

I've never subscribed to demonizing any group out of hand, but it's fairly easy to do so when there are enough facts (or in some cases, just one fact) to support the behavior.

What has to happen for Islam is what's you've said many times - a reformation of the core beliefs and values of the religion, by those of moderate temperament and broader perspective. That happened for Christianity only because of the "stability" of nation/states that offered those reformations a place to transpire.

As you've also said, the world is watching and interacting with this Islamic reformation/crisis/civil war differently than at any time in human history...because of technology, and because of the relative instability of the nations of the Middle East who have Islam, in one form or another, as a crucial underpinning of not just their societal identity, but their individual ones as well.

Form a Western (American) perspective, there is a very real concern against allowing the process to eventually produce a state like Nazi Germany. I am still astounded by how many German people had no idea what the Nazi regime was like until it was too late to stop them internally...and then subsequently saw their lives and reputations destroyed for nearly half a century.

It's hard to draw definitive lines in this problem, though, without so obvious a target as a Nazi Germany was (hence those "Axis of Evil" references we were so fond of once upon a time)...part of the U.S. problem is that a lot of our corporate and political interests are mixed up in all this - the by-product of Cold War proxy rulers...or 20th century colonialism...whatever works for you)...

I know that the answers have to come from Muslim people, if they want any semblance of their faith to survive in this day and age. But without concrete allies (nation/states) in the region, it is difficult for any overtly direct action by America to be seen as anything other than another land or power grab...

...Calling a spade a spade is one thing (see that nice race-baiting reference I made?). Playing the hand you're dealt (or the hand you've dealt yourself) is something else altogether...

 

YES!!!!

This is the real problem with militant Islam. All it takes is one person, the Imam, to rile up an entire village. And the Saudis have been actively funding them, despite our constant protests. Why? Because the want to redirect the ire of their own people away from them...if they aren't mad at the West, who else are they going to be mad at? The Saudi royalty.

In the CNN piece with Reza Islan, he brought this up, and it was ignored. Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most extreme Islamic state out there. They shroud themselves as keepers of the Islamic faith, yet violate many of its precepts (it is a world wide joke that some of the most well stocked liquor cabinets in the world, for example, are those in the Saudi royal family---while the Quran forbids drinking).

It is also worth nothing that the Quran teaches that Christians and Jews should be treated kindly, as they are Muslims brothers. That pretty much never gets mentioned when people cite the Quran for their intolerance and barbaric behaviour.

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses)"

What one then needs to determine is if they acted beneath animals before Islam. In the vast majority of cases, they did. Which is why I say that much of what people attribute to Islam is really more cultural than religious. It is also why you see the Quran interpreted differently in Western countries---they are brought up in a different culture. Arabs have been killing each other for various reasons for millenia. They did this before Islam was even around. ISIS is currently killing other Muslims...so apostasy or non-belief can't be cited as the reason.

YES!!! again! Although separate of church and state is going to be difficult as the problem is so inherent in Islam, where the church and state are one, and also because that, in a nutshell, is exactly what the extremists are fighting against. They don't want people to become enlightened and progress, or have freedom of expression.

Muslims have forgotten their history, I believe. During the Dark Ages in Europe, Islam was the shining beacon of light. Scholar and artists from all over the world flocked to Baghdad, and great works were accomplished there. Islam flourished, not through intolerance and bigotry, but through tolerance and enlightenment. The path the extremists are taking is doomed to failure. The only question is how many people must die on the way.

 

I'm not going to jump into this thread for much more than this post. We all know the Islam bashing agenda is ATW's cup of tea so presenting compelling arguments would be a waste of time. But for the benefit of those who want to hear both sides of the spectrum, then read on.

Staying on the topic of the thread which was about Bill Maher's attack on Islam and exchange between Ben Affleck. The article linked below perfectly sums up my thoughts on the subject. Included in the article are links to Gallop and Pew Research polls that don't have the asterisk of "Shariah supporters were only polled" etc. so I suggest if anyone reads the article and wants sources cited, go to the article itself.

http://muslimmatters.org/2014/10/09/bill-maher-the-mother-lode-of-lies/

 

Wow, this put a lot of things into perspective. Thanks for posting!

 

All religions are equally rediculous, really. People defend them with ferocity because examined objectively, they are embarrassing. Sky wizards? Really?

 

There's a term for what people like you do. It's called Cherry picking.

FROM THE SAME SURVEY BUT YOU NEGLECTED TO LEAVE OUT:



SJC: Hmmm, that doesn't make sense. Guess I will leave it out.




SJC: Guess that doesn't fit the narrative I am trying to tell, so I will leave it out...


You can't tussle with me, Sir Jackie Child - but nice try. I am happy to take you to school any day, boy.

 

How do those negate the polls he posted? Your logic seems to be if they are not completely inhuman and rejecting the society we live in, their inhuman characteristics are irrelevant.

If that isn't your argument, please explain.

 

I appreciate lengthy and detailed replies. It makes discussions much more interesting and fruitful. That first question of the actions of the majority defining the whole group is a very opinionated one. I say it goes both ways: sometimes a name becomes so poisoned to outsiders that no minority with very different beliefs can salvage it; sometimes a majority of a group strays off the right path while a minority remembers and preserves its memory. Calling myself a Muslim despite Islam's current PR is closer to the second one.

Again, if they constitute the majority then a response to them does not logically mean the response is against the whole group. It can based on two ways of looking at what defines a group. The onus should be on both sides, but more on the West because the extremist camp has a lot more money and weapons. You can't hear our voices over the clamor. "Don't shoot! We're not with them", we're saying.

It's also easier to feel part of the community when the community recognizes your identity. There were moments immediately after 9/11 where the extremely bigoted actions of a few fellow citizens made me feel alone and helpless. Do that on a scale large enough, and the West loses an ally and the very people it'd want to be the foundation for the post-reform Muslim world.

Not only is their interpretation more literal than mine, their interpretations are based on bad translations. For example, say the Quran says 'eating an apple a day keeps the doctor away'. Bad translation, 'eating a Macbook during sunlight will keep you safe from CDC quarantine'. Literal interpretation of that bad translation = 'follow it to a tee!' My interpretation = the book is saying eating an apple daily can be beneficial to your health. In fact, studies show that consuming fruits and vegetables often is a key to a healthy life.

The Quran says it can be read in more than one way, and that we're to supplement its message with common sense, empirical observations/science/liberal arts, and independent/critical self reflection. Literally reading it is clearly wrong, and not in the spirit that one of our Islamic duties as humans is to pursue (additional) knowledge and explore our Universe.

At some point, I may stop calling myself a Muslim since it's a just a label, and my relationship to God is far more profound. I'll opt for 'Mosulman' or something similar instead. Until then, my attitude to extremists hijacking the Quran/Islam and monopolizing its brand is this exchange from Office Space (1999):

I completely disagree with the belief's of others defining what I believe (not talking about influence). If we switched this discussion from what defines a Muslim to what defines an American, people would understand where I'm coming from. Just because many Americans believe the founding Forefathers were devout Christian and that they intended this country to be a Christian nation, doesn't mean I do - despite what my Scandinavian friend tells me.

Lastly, the Quran has a lot of room for interpretation, but interpretation is one thing and mistranslation - or a refusal to re-translate - is another. When you combine room for interpretation and you mistranslate it, that's a dangerous combo. As a lawyer who does this night and day, I should also say many seemingly-simple things are actually fair game for a broad interpretation i.e. "shall", the meaning a of a comma, etc.

It's clear where I stand on that line. What I don't like is the label of West sometimes. It reminds me a of this young man who I buy hot dogs from saying his choice to speak in Ebonics/African American Vernacular English and dress a certain way is so he doesn't "sound and look like a white boy". I replied that speaking and dressing a certain way wasn't the sole dominion of a certain skin pigment.

Opposing extremist Islam doesn't mean the West v. Islam in my book. I'm a citizen of the world. As an astronomy fan and idealist, there's no such thing as north/south/east/west on a rock going 60k+ mph around one star out of quadrillions of them. There are people who emphasize education, humanism (secular or religious), and egalitarianism; there are people who don't. I definitely belong to the former.

 

SJC is arguing that these people are violent murderers because of Islam. Yet that narrative is false based on the same poll. How can you defend his logic when he is cherry picking information from a poll to build a very slanted narrative?

 

these polls are contradiction of eachother. if more than 80-90% of the Muslims are in favor of religous freedom in their countries, why did such a large percent polled say that they are in favor of death penalty to converts.

 

Your polls don't contradict his polls. If you had a poll that they are against kicking puppies how does that negate the other polls? I don't see how you can call it cherry picking.

Death for apostasy flies directly in the face of religious freedom. They obviously view them as separate issues.

 

I know I'm super late to the debate here, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around this.

Are the polls basically showing that Muslims are oppressive to their own, but they are relatively tolerant when it comes to dealing with other religions? (terrorists and extremists aside)