''Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

I wouldnt claim it because it was not true,

Yet you are sure it's true about Islam yet can't support your proposition. This is prejudice Sam.

SamHarris wrote: »

I did not continue with the rape in Afghanistan claim because, whilst it is true, it is claimed to be mostly cultural rather than Islamic in nature.

And with that my head exploded.

SamHarris wrote: »

Anti-Semitism is not truly about Judaism

Sorry, but .......:pac:

SamHarris wrote: »

anymore - it is more about the "Zionist" who "controls the media" etc etc.

Not that this kinda crap deserves refuting but that all falls down by the fact that most prominent anti-Zionists I know are Jewish, at least ethnically and there are far more Christian Zionists than Jewish ones.

So in Sam world a Jew who opposes the politics of a Christian can be anti-semitic? :pac:

The ministry for truth has had their wicked way with you me thinks.

I'll give you a good example to demonstrate this. An anti-Zionist Jew, Max Blumenthal interviewing bloodthirsty Christian Zionists in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

Undergod

I think what Sam meant was that "anti-Zionism" is a label that many anti-Semites use to try hide and justify their racism, or the essentially racist basis of their beliefs. My reading of it anyway.

Brown Bomber

Undergod wrote: »

I think what Sam meant was that "anti-Zionism" is a label that many anti-Semites use to try hide and justify their racism, or the essentially racist basis of their beliefs. My reading of it anyway.

My experience is that anti-semites have no intention of "hiding" they are very much openly anti-Jew.

Brown Bomber

Undergod wrote: »

Not really relevant, in my opinion - just because he didn't use Islam as a justification doesn't mean others who are fighting for similar reasons don't.

I believe "use" is the operative word here. Or more accurately IMO abuse.

Undergod wrote: »

Sam isn't saying it's Islam alone, as far as I can see.

Well then I'd agree. Islam does have a role IMO in that can be the glue that binds within a siege mentality. It's a common strand that can tie fractured tribes together to fight a common enemy. Is this an indicator that Islam is a religion of violence? IMO no.

I think you need to go back further to reach the root of the problem i.e. the enemy.

I do not think that terrorism can organically grow from with Islam without outside pressures.

Undergod wrote: »

Well, his followers appear to disagree.

If that is the case and I am not sure that it is, then the No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply anymore (based on what I can get my head around - only heard about it from this forum ) as you are actually changing the definition of Islamic jurisprudence and by extension what Islam itself actually is.

Undergod wrote: »

I'll reply to your other post tomorrow, hopefully, it's kinda late.

Yeah no bother . CET here :mad: Goodnight.

lemonjelly

All religions starts peaceful...Eventually it builds nations and empires and then It becomes war when it is threatened. History has teached us this for so long. So no, I don't believe Muslims can sustain their peaceful agenda for too long. Like us catholics In Ireland, they are are diety loving bunch of people who have no direction but a power war. Yes , I know plenty of really nice muslim people. But no, It wil not solve the religion problem as cause of war in the world

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK. I'm listening. PROVE IT.

I'll give you a counter-example. The Osama bin Laden of his day, Abu Nidal. He was secularist Palestinian terrorist. Religion was no motive for him yet he and his Marxist followers carried out the same kind of attacks as Al Qaeda for the same reasons (less Islam) percieved injustices.

Geddit now?

They TELL US. They wish to use violence to establish Islamic states. They claim they will be rewarded in the after life if they give their life in this cause. But this is not religious to BB


You honestly cant tell the difference between a political person who uses violence and is Muslim and a political person that uses violence in the name of Islam?


Seems pretty damn simple. Get it now?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well if it was solely Islam then you'd have a billion terrorists in the world. You seem to think so but this is utter ****e. You have tunnel vision when it comes to Islam.

Yes everyone has said all Muslims are terrorists. Show me where THAT paticular gem came from, or how the hell you got it from me saying Islam is more conducive to violence than Buddhism. Once again jumping to the extreme, first it was a fairy tale FINAL SOLUTION now its this.... Its almost sad at this point.

Who said anything about it being soley "Islam"? Like *I* said some sects within Islam are even more conducive to violence, others less. Then there are other factors, economic, cultural etc. Islam is a major one, and is CENTRAL to much. But of course to you this means "All Muslims are suicide bombers!" to BB :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To be frank this is more ignorant nonsense.

No Hamas describes itself as an Islamic organistation. It therefore would not exist without Islam. Too complicated for you?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hamas came about because of and during the first infitada. Hezbollah came about as a result of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the 80's. If you could just try to see past your prejudice you would see other factors at play here.

Once again no one claimed it was the only factor. It is, according to Hamas, an important factor, indeed it is a precusite - its members"fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." But to BB it is not all that improtant... :rolleyes:

I never said there werent any other factors, once again your making stuff up. YOU are the one making the stupid ass claim that Islam is a side issue. They dont think so. They seem to think their Islamic identity is CRUCIAL.

Just because they have political opinions does not mean they have nothing to do with Islam. This is dumb, and basically what your argument now boils down to. Even their politics

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes I do as it happens.If the Palestinians were Buddhist and were ethnically cleansed in the same way in 48' then I don't see how being a Buddhist makes ethnic cleansing more palatable.

You obviously know little about Tibet. They do NOT react in a similiar fashion to the Palestinians. And if they did and did not dress their ideology in Buddhist rhetoric, and justify it with rewards in their after life from buddha, but used nationalist doctrine instead then it would not be a BUDDHIST movemente. Or Buddhist terrorism. It would nationalist movement from people who happened to be Buddhist.It could easily be BOTH. How is this so very difficult for you to understand?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is not a fact. FFS man try and get this through your head or learn what a fact actually is.

It is a fact for those who kill themselves and others in the name of Islam, with the belief that there will be a reward for doing so. It is as much a fact as anything about a religion.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hmmm and the poll of US Muslims I linked to showed that US Muslims were the most against attacks on civilians.

Whats your point? That there is other factors other than Islam at play? Well WOW.

Your even forgetting your own argument - that Islam is a relgion of peace. THat it rarely or never leads to or gives meaning to violence. I'm sure even you are starting to realise how wrong THAT is.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And is bin Laden fit to declare a fatwa? I'll answer because you'll ignore it. The answer is NO.

Ecstatic that you answered. But why the hell does it matter? The very existance of a fatwa in a faith should preclude your opinion regarding it.

Meant to say peripheral. Im tired.

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yet you are sure it's true about Islam yet can't support your proposition. This is prejudice Sam.

Again I showed you where EVERY SINGLE one of the "baseless claims" I made, quiet clearly, had a base.

I knew you would just ignore it, as it is so very annoying being proved wrong, which is why I didnt bother going through my history to find them untill recently.

I have now, so you have no excuse.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And with that my head exploded.

We could only be so lucky.

http://www.afghanlord.org/2010/05/honor-gang-rape.html You can check up specific cases if you want. So yes, I was right again, and yes I did have evidence for my opinion.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sorry, but .......:pac:

Yes it has been racial rather than relgiious for years. Hitler did not attack the doctrine of the old testament - he believed in a racial purity. This is still the case with most anti-semites.

You ARE aware there is a difference, right?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So in Sam world a Jew who opposes the politics of a Christian can be anti-semitic? :pac:

No a person who believes a particular racial group should not have a homeland is. Zionist does not speciifcally mean support in Palestine. Lets try "I do not beleive black people should have their own indepedant country, those who support them are evil and lurking around every corner" Doesnt sound as cute now does it?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The ministry for truth has had their wicked way with you me thinks.

Yes yes the Jew controled media got to me.

Keep it for the CC board BB. Im not surprised you are ashamed of your opinions that you give on the CC and take it as a slur when people bring it up.

Dades

Why are we talking about Jews at all?

Oranage2

In my opinion Islam is a religion of hate -

Underage marriage/rape is acceptable sure even their chosen prophet was at it.

Also they way they treat women is horrible and acid face burning are all too common.

People might think christian nations are intorrable to other religions but if you actually go to a muslim country well your beliefs and culture could easily land you in a jail cell and/or beheaded.

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

No a person who believes a particular racial group should not have a homeland is. Zionist does not speciifcally mean support in Palestine. Lets try "I do not beleive black people should have their own indepedant country, those who support them are evil and lurking around every corner" Doesnt sound as cute now does it?

Haha. Sammy! I Think Elijah Muhammed has hacked your account. Didn't have you down as a racial separatist ...but then again you'd go down a treat with the EDL, if you don't already.

Of course black people shouldn't have there own independent country ffs.

Brown Bomber

Oranage2 wrote: »

In my opinion Islam is a religion of hate -

Underage marriage/rape is acceptable sure even their chosen prophet was at it.

Also they way they treat women is horrible and acid face burning are all too common.

People might think christian nations are intorrable to other religions but if you actually go to a muslim country well your beliefs and culture could easily land you in a jail cell and/or beheaded.

Have you ever lived in a "Muslim Country"? I have, well a Muslim majority country and I've somehow managed to avoid jail cells and kept my head.

ed2hands

Standman wrote: »

I don't think it suggests much about Islam in general, for example looking at polls of Muslims especially living in Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine the results are very different:



This to me would suggest that politics and life experience plays a big role in Muslim opinion on this issue. What did the results from the poll you posted suggest to you about Islam?

To cite the above poll as evidence that Islam is not a religion of peace is preposterous to me. Taking views of people in the Palestinian territories and extrapolating on this matter is an absolute nonsense.

The only thing that poll shows is that if you starve, murder, humiliate, and generally treat people worse than you would animals, then those people will have very extreme viewpoints that reflect their rage and desperation.

Also citing Muslim on Muslim killings in places like Iraq is not for me valid evidence for the same reason. It's a war-torn hellish place created by forces without. Iran-Iraq war? Again preposterous to suggest it as evidence.

And for that matter, comparing Islam to Buddhism in relation to the Tibet situation as a certain someone has done can be thrown out too. Ridiculous comparison.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have you ever lived in a "Muslim Country"? I have, well a Muslim majority country and I've somehow managed to avoid jail cells and kept my head.

I'm sure that if I were to visit or live in an Islamic country such as Saudi or Iran that I, too, could manage to stay out of jail and keep my head on my shoulders. But I would have to be very careful to watch my step in order to do so. No open discussion of whether "Islam is a religion of peace" for example!

That's a very different experience to living in a secular country with free speech and human rights & equality legislation, where I can be far more relaxed about being myself, and where I can peacefully protest about the government / the Church /whatever, while wearing pretty much anything I like and drawing pictures or effigies of anyone I like.

Question for you BB: you have lived in Ireland and a Muslim country, which do you prefer? Are there freedoms in Ireland you would miss if you had to live say in Saudi?

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

I'm sure that if I were to visit or live in an Islamic country such as Saudi or Iran that I, too, could manage to stay out of jail and keep my head on my shoulders. But I would have to be very careful to watch my step in order to do so. No open discussion of whether "Islam is a religion of peace" for example!

That's a very different experience to living in a secular country with free speech and human rights & equality legislation, where I can be far more relaxed about being myself, and where I can peacefully protest about the government / the Church /whatever, while wearing pretty much anything I like and drawing pictures or effigies of anyone I like.

Question for you BB: you have lived in Ireland and a Muslim country, which do you prefer? Are there freedoms in Ireland you would miss if you had to live say in Saudi?

I should point out it was Egypt which is fairly secular by comparison as far as I know. I had a really authenthic experience, I have a 1/2 Egyptain ex girlfriend so I got to know the real people. It is a little strange to not be able to hug a married woman for example and I am 99% sure her uncle was gay and was forced into living a lie, which was sad Also, I was there during elections and it was actually quite dangerous to be in the streets I would say that I didn't meet a single Muslim I didn't like, honestly. They were real salt of the earth people. They have almost nothing but they'd gladly give you everything they have, tell someone they have a nice shirt and they'd take it off their back and gladly give it to you. I asked them why they are so kind and they say IT IS BECAUSE OF ISLAM.

There is two sides to this I think. Is Islam oppresive? In part I'd say. Does it make Muslims violent. I'd say no.

I really can't comment on life in Saudi Arabia but undoubtedly there is more freedom here. Having said that I volunteer a couple of afternoons a week in an immigrant education center. Roughly 50% that come through are Muslims from various backgrounds and quite a few have come from Saudi Arabia, but are not Saudi Arabian and every person I've spoken speaks really highly of life in Saudi Arabia.

Brown Bomber

ed2hands wrote: »

To cite the above poll as evidence that Islam is not a religion of peace is preposterous to me. Taking views of people in the Palestinian territories and extrapolating on this matter is an absolute nonsense.

The only thing that poll shows is that if you starve, murder, humiliate, and generally treat people worse than you would animals, then those people will have very extreme viewpoints that reflect their rage and desperation.

Also citing Muslim on Muslim killings in places like Iraq is not for me valid evidence for the same reason. It's a war-torn hellish place created by forces without. Iran-Iraq war? Again preposterous to suggest it as evidence.

And for that matter, comparing Islam to Buddhism in relation to the Tibet situation as a certain someone has done can be thrown out too. Ridiculous comparison.

Right Said Ed If I could kiss you I could.

Undergod

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right Said Ed If I could kiss you I could.

But even Muslims in peaceful, Western, countries seem to support, or at least not condemn, Islamist violence. So what Ed said doesn't cover that, though he's right that it's certainly an important contributing factor in many regions.

Regarding the post I said I'd get back to, those fatwas are FULL of religious references, so he is explicitly using Islam to encourage acts of violence.

And on the anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism front, I think that a lot of anti-Semites are smart enough to know that anti-Semitism is rightfully viewed as an awful, awful prejudice (as any prejudice ought to be). Therefore, they dress it up with an air of respectability and pretend they're only worried about Zionism. Though perhaps, as Dades said, that's a discussion for elsewhere.

Brown Bomber

Undergod wrote: »

But even Muslims in peaceful, Western, countries seem to support, or at least not condemn, Islamist violence. So what Ed said doesn't cover that, though he's right that it's certainly an important contributing factor in many regions.

There seems to be some confusion here. Let's go back to Sam's poll results on Muslims on terrorism,



Now compare that to the poll that I'd posted on the attitudes of different religious groups to terrorism in the US to put the above into context.



US Muslims are the single highest group against violence. Also Pakistani Muslims are more strongly against terrorism than US Christians, Atheists, Jews, and Mormons. This simple doesn't fit with the notion that Islam is an inspiration for violence over and above any of the rest.

I've tried to dig up some more polls. Haven't read them properly yet but just to share.

However, according to Populus, 12 per cent of 18 to 24-year-old Muslims believe that suicide bombings can be justified here, and 21 per cent in Israel. A fifth of all Muslims, and a quarter of men, say suicide attacks against the military can be justified, though only 7 per cent say this about civilians.

Very few Muslim Americans hold a positive opinion of al Qaeda -- only 5% give the terrorist organization a favorable rating, while 68% express an unfavorable view, including 58% who describe their view as very unfavorable. About one-quarter (27%) decline to offer an opinion. Support for suicide terrorism among Muslim Americans is similarly rare: 78% believe that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam from its enemies can never be justified, and another 5% say these types of attacks are rarely justified. Fewer than one-in-ten American Muslims say that suicide bombing is sometimes (7%) or often (1%) justified.

And while the majority of Muslims in all four European countries surveyed say they have little or no confidence in Osama bin Laden, French Muslims are virtually unanimous (93%) in their disdain. (By comparison, 68% of British Muslims submit a vote of no confidence in the Al Qaeda leader.

And the other side of that is who from our communities is doing the condemning for violence against Muslims?

For example,

I have deliberately selected "low-end" estimates for Muslim fatalities, so these figures present the "best case" for the United States. Even so, the United States has killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost. The real ratio is probably much higher, and a reasonable upper bound for Muslim fatalities (based mostly on higher estimates of "excess deaths" in Iraq due to the sanctions regime and the post-2003 occupation) is well over one million, equivalent to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/30/why_they_hate_us_ii_how_many_muslims_has_the_us_killed_in_the_past_30_years

&



http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/killedbyyear-lg.jpg

SamHarris

ed2hands wrote: »

To cite the above poll as evidence that Islam is not a religion of peace is preposterous to me. Taking views of people in the Palestinian territories and extrapolating on this matter is an absolute nonsense.

It was not just in the Palestinian territories, but it is indicative that despite being far from the most oppressed people on earth (not to play down the massive suffering there) they are some of the most willing to support suicide bombing. It is ubiquiots throuought the Muslim world, some places more than other as that poll clearly shows.

ed2hands wrote: »

The only thing that poll shows is that if you starve, murder, humiliate, and generally treat people worse than you would animals, then those people will have very extreme viewpoints that reflect their rage and desperation.

Firstly they are far from the only violent respondents, just the ones with the greatest propencity. You ignore all the other results as it serves your purpose? Its in the same table for gods sake...

Al Qaeda are not based in Palestine, nor did they start there. That they even have an interest in what goes on there is based on relgioun, not humanitarian ideals.

ed2hands wrote: »

Also citing Muslim on Muslim killings in places like Iraq is not for me valid evidence for the same reason. It's a war-torn hellish place created by forces without. Iran-Iraq war? Again preposterous to suggest it as evidence.

You do not beleive al Qaeda specifically targeting who they see as apostates in Iraq is not valid? To bad, it very much is. It was a secterian split, along sunni shia lines - it had alot to do with religion regardless if it was "war torn" or not. Before you use the N Ireland example, that was split on relgiious lines which had poltiical conotations - al Qaeda and their ilk target "apostate" Muslims on purely relgious grounds, they beleive these people are dangerous to the very souls of those around them. It is not easy to put yourself in the mindset of someone who KNOWS they act on behalf of the creator of the universe, but that is what must be done to understand these groups.

Iran Iraq war was merely an example of Muslim on Muslim violence, BB seemed to think it was a very rare thing, that Western forces were responsible for far more killing that Muslims in Muslim lands. I was just pointing out how wrong this was. It was not an example of a religious conflict,thought Iran DID use religious rhetoric, including handing out little plastic "keys to heavan" to shilderen who were willing to kill/ die in the name of their religious cause. That you cant see a relgious tie in that conlict between a new revolutionary sunni regime and an opressive shia regime over a sunni majority speaks more to your ignorance on the subject than any real analasys based on fact.

ed2hands wrote: »

And for that matter, comparing Islam to Buddhism in relation to the Tibet situation as a certain someone has done can be thrown out too. Ridiculous comparison.

Why?

You claim to "starve, murder, humiliate, and generally treat people worse than you would animals" is reason enough to be radicalised, that it has nothing to do with the religion. Then this would hold true in places LIKE Tibet, which people are far more oppressed and "ethnically cleansed" than Palestine, however they do NOT have the same violence problems, to anywhere near the degree. Religion is not the only difference but then - that the violence in Palestine is often described in relgious terms, and involves relgiously tied groups like Hamas puts payed to your hypothesis.

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There seems to be some confusion here. Let's go back to Sam's poll results on Muslims on terrorism,



Now compare that to the poll that I'd posted on the attitudes of different religious groups to terrorism in the US to put the above into context.



US Muslims are the single highest group against violence. Also Pakistani Muslims are more strongly against terrorism than US Christians, Atheists, Jews, and Mormons. This simple doesn't fit with the notion that Islam is an inspiration for violence over and above any of the rest.

I've tried to dig up some more polls. Haven't read them properly yet but just to share.






And the other side of that is who from our communities is doing the condemning for violence against Muslims?

For example,




http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/30/why_they_hate_us_ii_how_many_muslims_has_the_us_killed_in_the_past_30_years

&



http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/killedbyyear-lg.jpg

Whats your point? You are aware the debate is Islam violent?

That they do not have near the same ability as the US or Israel is not a bad thing, these figures are much more indicative of their capability than their mindset.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Why are we talking about Jews at all?

What's this thread about anyway? All I see is lots of graphs and page after page of text.

Brown Bomber

Sam >>> Let's try something different so. Do you consider the majority of Muslims as civilised?

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sam >>> Let's try something different so. Do you consider the majority of Muslims as civilised?

What?

What does that even mean? No, very few of them are "barbarians" if thats what you mean. Although now that I think about it the Taliban would be about as close as you get to a moderen day equivalent.

If civilations could be graded on a linear scale then the Islamic one would very clearly mark a low point in comparrison to other moderen civilistations.

For example the Middle East is extremly rich yet does not have one world class university.Something like 40 foreign books were translated into Arabic last year. Even INDUSTRY is nearly non existant there. It is almost completly reliant soley on oil. That a population about the size of the US can so clearly put such promise and treausre to waste is very telling to me. Maybe the Middle East is not a shinging example of Islamic civilisation, but what is?

What I picture when I think of Islamic civilsation is burkas, praying and imperialism. Any "civlisation" based on religion is instantly on to a loser, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that forcing women to dress in a cloth bag is never going to be seen as a pinacal of human flourishing.

None of the things I, albiet personally, believe bring about humanities betterment, personal freedom-of speech, dress, intellect, religion etc are all condemed and villified as par for course. Massive amounts of very clever people dedicate their lives to the quran and the Hadith, imagine what could be accomplished if the same rescources were put into, say, bio medical science?

If thats what you mean by civilised, and its a caricature for sure, a very regionally based one, then they are that.

This "civility" applies to Muslims all over the world, but to a much greater or lesser extent. I have no doubt a large minority if not most of Western Muslims have pretty different values and outlooks on personal freedoms. Indonesians Im sure act pretty differently to Saudi Arabians, but there are some commonalities - notably massive sexism and a "brotherhood" with those they deem wronged halfway across the world, for which many are willing to do violence.

biko

"Islam is a threat to Canada", Prime minister Stephen Harper says

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4LJ-WrQSBI

As the interviewee says: why are the majority of refugees into the west from Muslim countries?




'Muslims are the problem, not multiculturalism' - RT's Tom Barton talks to professor of law Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider.
at 6.30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rAHytLwSKU

These are heavy hitters and have the guts to admit that Islam isn't good for Europe.

Btw, police in Berlin have arrested two men suspected of planning a bomb attack. One of the men is described as a 24-year-old German citizen of Lebanese descent, while the other is from Gaza, aged 28.
Police are searching the premises of an Islamic cultural centre in the Wedding district, as well as the two men's residences.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14834280


The Aga Khan is the only Islamic leader I have any type of respect for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Gn_hueFt8

swampgas

biko wrote: »

"Islam is a threat to Canada", Prime minister Stephen Harper says

As the interviewee says: why are the majority of refugees into the west from Muslim countries?

'Muslims are the problem, not multiculturalism' - RT's Tom Barton talks to professor of law Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider.
at 6.30

<rambling>

These videos are not direct attacks on Islam at all (IMO anyway) but on Islamicism and the push for Sharia in secular states.

I think it's important to differentiate between Islam and Islamicism.

Someone could theoretically be a Muslim without wanting to replace the secular state with Sharia law, and (perhaps) without wanting to send their kids to Islamic schools - as long as they take a fairly Western approach and see their religion as something very personal.

Islamicism is incompatible with liberal western values, and it may be fear of Islamicism and Sharia that is causing a lot of the friction between the Islamic communities and their secular neighbours in Europe.

To me this leads to an interesting question: Can you have a large Islamic community where Islamicism and demands for Sharia are absent? Does Islam always tend toward theocracy, Sharia, and replacement of democratic secularism?

A big contrast between Christianity in Europe and Islam in the Middle East is that the former tends towards the personal and apolitical, whereas the latter tends towards the organised & overtly political.

Consequently European states should not treat Islam as just another religion among various versions of Christianity and Judaism, otherwise they are being blind to the fact that Islam is not just a religion in the modern European sense, but is also a major political movement, possibly with significant financial backing from wealthy Muslims in the Gulf states.

There is also the accusation that secular westerners are intolerant of Islam - and that this is unacceptable religious intolerance. However when Islam is viewed as not just a religion but as a political movement, there is plenty of justification for being intolerant of it, and for criticising it openly when it seems to be wrong. This is not religious intolerance in a strict sense, but the perfectly normal and necessary political debate that is part of the secular nation's way of life.

</rambling>

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

What?

What does that even mean? No, very few of them are "barbarians" if thats what you mean. Although now that I think about it the Taliban would be about as close as you get to a moderen day equivalent.

If civilations could be graded on a linear scale then the Islamic one would very clearly mark a low point in comparrison to other moderen civilistations.

For example the Middle East is extremly rich yet does not have one world class university.Something like 40 foreign books were translated into Arabic last year. Even INDUSTRY is nearly non existant there. It is almost completly reliant soley on oil. That a population about the size of the US can so clearly put such promise and treausre to waste is very telling to me. Maybe the Middle East is not a shinging example of Islamic civilisation, but what is?

What I picture when I think of Islamic civilsation is burkas, praying and imperialism. Any "civlisation" based on religion is instantly on to a loser, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that forcing women to dress in a cloth bag is never going to be seen as a pinacal of human flourishing.

None of the things I, albiet personally, believe bring about humanities betterment, personal freedom-of speech, dress, intellect, religion etc are all condemed and villified as par for course. Massive amounts of very clever people dedicate their lives to the quran and the Hadith, imagine what could be accomplished if the same rescources were put into, say, bio medical science?

If thats what you mean by civilised, and its a caricature for sure, a very regionally based one, then they are that.

This "civility" applies to Muslims all over the world, but to a much greater or lesser extent. I have no doubt a large minority if not most of Western Muslims have pretty different values and outlooks on personal freedoms. Indonesians Im sure act pretty differently to Saudi Arabians, but there are some commonalities - notably massive sexism and a "brotherhood" with those they deem wronged halfway across the world, for which many are willing to do violence.

So that's a no then? Or at least you see Muslims as the lowest of the low of all current civilisations?

You don't think this prejudice could be clouding your judgement do you?

, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that forcing women to dress in a cloth bag is never going to be seen as a pinacal of human flourishing

And neither is ignorant comments like the above

None of the things I, albiet personally, believe bring about humanities betterment,

couldn't agree more

What I picture when I think of Islamic civilsation is burkas, praying and imperialism.

Doesn't surprise me. Explains a lot though. Would you like some more rope?

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So that's a no then? Or at least you see Muslims as the lowest of the low of all current civilisations?

You don't think this prejudice could be clouding your judgement do you?

What KPIs would you use to rate a modern civilisation? Sam has used a couple of fairly reasonable indicators, I think.

MrP

ed2hands

Opinions from talking heads on TV (even if they're heads of state) and arrests of suspected political extremists are not evidence that Islam is not a religion of peace.
Nor is opinions on how Western culture is more advanced and civilised than other parts of the world.
Nor is Islamophobia and religous intolerence dressed up as immigration issues.

FWIW i think the Aga Khan's viewpoint is spot on. Ta for that.

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So that's a no then? Or at least you see Muslims as the lowest of the low of all current civilisations?

Lowest? Maybe not. Do I believe any of the above indicators show anything close to a "succesful" modren formula? Of course not. To me they speak for themselves. You may consider every civilisation equal, that praying is not exactly a better way to spend ones day than, for example, helping develop quantom computers. But thats your opinion, and this is mine.

Really that you are so clearly unable to see ANY of the failings brought about by an Islamic society is more weakening to your position than mine.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You don't think this prejudice could be clouding your judgement do you?

It is not a prejudice by the standards I beleive are important, education ,personal freedom and technological development. They are all more or less measurable and it is therefore NOT a prejudice, it is an obesrvation of data. Would you like to argue any of those things are more prevaliant/ better catered for in Islamic societies? Knock yourself out and start a thread.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And neither is ignorant comments like the above

You do know what ignorance is right? Tell me, is my assertion that women are forced to wear burqas in many Muslim societies wrong? No? Then it is not "ignorant" it is a value judgement.

Again, if you wish to argue that forcing women to wear the veil is just as good as allowing women to wear whatever they want, including the veil then start a thread in humanitites and use your no doubt extensive knowledge of moral philosophy.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

couldn't agree more

Ah so you do have some opinion on what makes a civilisation "good" in your eyes? Enlighten us then.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Doesn't surprise me. Explains a lot though. Would you like some more rope?

Would you like to explain why this changes why its violent or not? Oh look, after claiming al Qaeda is not really based on religion, its on to ad hominem. This is clearly over BB.

Do you believe that religions can NEVER be more conducive to certain behaviour? That the teachings of a creed has no bearings on the actions of its adherents? That is bascially the only way one can remain "neutral" to an ideology -you claimed earleir you were neutral to both Buddhism and Islam. It would be a very very tough thing to argue, especially consdering that nearly everyone who follows a faith would disagree with you wholeheartedly, but you can if you want to.

You claim that people tell you they are welcoming to guests "because of their relgion" - you believe them. Why then, is it so difficult for you to believe an al Qaeda operative that makes a video claiming he does what he does in the name of Islam and justifies it with quotes from Islam? Seems to me very clear you cherry pick who you believe to reinforce your opinion. Typical amoungst CTers tbh.

SamHarris

ed2hands wrote: »

Opinions from talking heads on TV (even if they're heads of state) and arrests of suspected political extremists are not evidence that Islam is not a religion of peace.
Nor is opinions on how Western culture is more advanced and civilised than other parts of the world.
Nor is Islamophobia and religous intolerence dressed up as immigration issues.

FWIW i think the Aga Khan's viewpoint is spot on. Ta for that.

Many Islamic groups who kill in the name of Islam, however, is. And has not been dealt with at all by people who claim Islam is not violent - the only argument against is "there are non violent muslims" which is hardly the point.

The guy who runs Corboda house in the states and wanted to open a cultural centre near ground zero is another elequant defender of his faith. Unfortunatly for all of us they are FAR from the only voices in Islam, and the more extreme ones according to all polls on this thread represent a very significant proportion of the followers.

ed2hands

SamHarris wrote: »

Many Islamic groups who kill in the name of Islam, however, is. And has not been dealt with at all by people who claim Islam is not violent - the only argument against is "there are non violent muslims" which is hardly the point.

It's quite simple to me really. Islamic groups who kill in the name of Islam are subverting and using the religion for their own ends. It's not hard to fathom really is it?
The vast majority of muslims are peaceful people yes?
They are not influenced by their religion to be violent. Therefore Islam is a religion of peace. It's that simple.

Now you can plaster the thread again with stats that you claim back up your skewed logic, but IMO graphs and the like from downtrodden and wartorn areas prove nothing except what i already commented on.

Middle East political tensions have nothing to do with this question and shoehorning it here just doesn't wash with me.
The Arab lands were carved up arbitrarily many years ago as you know by Colonial pillagers. That was just the start of their problems though as Imperialism is alive and well in the 21st century. Maybe thats too "CT" for you though..
To make sweeping assumtions like you've done as nauseum and blame those inhabitants religion on this is just daft. You've set out your stall as some sort of expert on middle eastern affairs and accused me of ignorance on these things but i'm afraid i can't take your views as anything more than biased ill-informed rantings.

Your seem to have a latent prejudice regarding Muslims from your posts here and IMO it is clouding your judgement on this matter. You're slapping things on the table as so-called evidence that are just plain ridiculous. Your opinions about Muslims are your own business and your entitled to your views of course. Your attempts to prove this point however and throwing out childish baseless accusations to other posters when you get in a strop are a bit naff.
Hope you got to view the Aga Khan vid on this matter as he puts it quite succinctly and more politely than i can.