Muslims are no Different, or why Bill Maher’s blood libel is Bigotry

[shaayecanaan]

Comedian Bill Maher puts himself in the company of “9/11 liberals” who believe that Islam as a religion is different and decidedly worse than all other religions. He said Friday that ‘at least half of all Muslims believe it is all right to kill someone who insults ‘the Prophet.’ His bad faith is immediately apparent in the reference to 9/11, not the work of mainstream Muslims but of a political cult whose members often spent their time in strip clubs.

Now, it may be objected that Maher has made a career of attacking all religions, and promoting irreverence toward them. So Islam is just one more target for him. But that tack wouldn’t entirely be true. He explicitly singles Islam out as more, much more homocidal than the other religions. He is personally unpleasant to his Muslim guests, such as Keith Ellison. His reaction to the youth of the Arab Spring gathering to try to overthrow their American-backed dictators was “the Arabs are revolting.” Try substituting “Jews” to see how objectionable that is.

Maher ironically has de facto joined an Islamophobic network that is funded by the Mellon Scaife Foundation and other philanthropies tied to the American Enterprise Institute, etc. which is mainly made up of evangelical Christians, bigoted American Jews who would vote for the Likud Party if they could, and cynical Republican businessmen and politicians casting about for something with which to frighten working class Americans into voting for them.

Maher is a consistent liberal and donated $1 million to the Obama campaign, so he is in odd company in targeting Muslims this way. So what explains this animus against Muslims in particular? The only thing he has in common with the Islamophobic Right is his somewhat bloodthirsty form of militant Zionism. He strongly supported the Israeli attack on helpless little Lebanon in 2006, in which the Israelis dropped a million cluster bombs on the farms of the south of that country. He talks about how the besieged Palestinians of Gaza deserve to be “nuked.” His interviews with Likudnik Israeli officials are typically fawning, unlike his combative style with other right wing guests.

From a couple of years ago, but it remains current:-

http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/muslims-are-no-different-or-why-bill-mahers-blood-libel-is-bigotry.html

[Scootaloo]

1. Maher is one of those instances where people often confuse wit with wisdom

[X_Digger]

2. Aptly put. n/t

[Skittles]

176. "faith" seems to be very shaky these days

if they really, truly believe, why get so upset over what people have to say about it?

[shaayecanaan]

3. Maher contra Greenwald on Muslims

Yes, Greenwald, the libertarian. Let us all stand for the 2 minutes' hate.

(pause)

and onward we go:-

[LawDeeDah]

4. That was incredibly well done by Greenwald.

I am not a fan of his but he smacked down Maher reeeeeeal good, and Maher needed that. Bill couldn't back out of that, the bigoted weasel.

[hardcover]

6. To be fair

Greenwald was short on facts. He said we invaded Iraq because our god is bigger.
That's a new one. I thought it was for oil.

[LawDeeDah]

7. I do remember some reference Bush and the gang made on this god thing.

In what wording I don't know exactly, but yep, it was there.

[hardcover]

10. Not saying he didn't but I remember him constantly saying Islam is a great religion.

The problem is that Islam is not just a religion, it's both a religion and a political system in one. Islamic law is not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems.
It's the requirement to have political power that makes it different than other religions. Bill didn't explain that.
You can argue that some people of other religions want to rule, and some do, but it is not in the creed of any other religion to do so.

[shaayecanaan]

41. Absolute bullshit

On any historical reckoning, Islam has been much better at co-existing than Christianity is:-

[riderinthestorm]

49. All of those Christian sects are located in the ME, not Europe

So yeah, that chart is very misleading.... Copts for example are pretty much only located in Egypt. Yazidis in Iraq, Assyrians in Syria etc. Theres been no European persecution because these groups aren't in Europe in large masses to begin with.

Yes there's small groups of expats but you do the "cause" no good by stretching this into the ridiculous.

[shaayecanaan]

50. Thats the whole point

Christian groups exist in the middle East, but Muslim groups in Christendom were all pretty much slaughtered.

Muslim societies historically tolerated the presence of Christian communities, but Christian communities did not tolerate the presence of Muslims.

I thought that was pretty apparent, to be honest. Hopefully others understood better than you did.

[riderinthestorm]

60. which Muslim group in Europe has been slaughtered? nt

[shaayecanaan]

64. re

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

to say nothing of the other religious groups that Christians have rubbed out over the years.

[baldguy]

68. Vlad Tepes is a national hero in Romania, because he defeated the Turks.

In the West, Muslims have always been depicted as The Evil Horde. So much so, that Dracula is looked upon as beneficent in comparison.

[hrmjustin]

84. That is not completely true.

In the ME there were plenty of periods of peace but there were also many persecutions.

The cities of Northern Iraq were cities of Christian learning that coexisted with Islam for 4 to 5 centuries but were pretty much destroyed in the 1100 to 1300 period.

There was and continues to be persecution of Christian and other religious minorities under Islamic rule.

[hrmjustin]

81. Tell that to the Christians of the Middle East.

[Prophet 451]

52. No, that's bollocks

"Islam" is a religion, the political system is "Sharia". Islam is no more incompatible with modern society than any other religion. Sharia is the political power part. And all the Abrahamic religions command their followers to rule.

[riqster]

79. True. Like "Jewish" and "Talmud".

[merrily]

129. Maybe more like Judaism and Talmud?

[riqster]

133. Fair point. Thanks.

[merrily]

134. You're welcome!

[merrily]

128. Sharia is Islamic moral and religious law.

To Arabic-speaking people, sharia (shariah, shari'a, sharīʿah; Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], "legislation&quot , means the moral code and religious law of a prophetic religion.[1][2][3] The term "sharia" has been largely identified with Islam in English usage.[4]

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

While we controlled Iraq, we allowed our puppets to incorporate sharia law into the Constitution and some Muslim countries legislate sharia law principles. But, sharia is the religious and moral law of Islam.

[Babel_17]

86. Yeah, it was discussed here

Last edited Fri Oct 10, 2014, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-bush-memos-rumsfeld-scripture-push-iraq-war-article-1.411419

If that is the instance you are thinking of, in any way.

[jen63]

117. One of W's and his cabinet's

favorites was "evil doers." It smacks of religion; the devil and all that. The repubs still use that phrase today. It sounds so histrionic and I despise it like I do "homeland" They sound ridiculous. Then again the repubs are ridiculous, so you have to consider the source. I'm sure that there are some conservative dems who use those terms also. No I don't have a link, but this country sure went cray cray after 9/11/2001.

[Luminous Animal]

8. He did mention oil. Listen again 2:14. And he didn't say that we invaded Iraq because

our god is bigger. He said that some U.S. generals used religion as a justification. Which is true.

[merrily]

127. So, the poster who accused Greenwald of being short on facts was short on facts.

[Turborama]

18. Did you miss this....?

Donald Rumsfeld's holy war: How President Bush's Iraq briefings came with quotes from the Bible

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was sold as a fight for freedom against the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. But for former U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his elite Pentagon strategists, it was more like a religious crusade.

The daily briefings about the progress of the war that Mr Rumsfeld gave to President George W Bush were illustrated with victorious quotes from the Bible and gung-ho photographs of U.S. troops, it has emerged.

The news is certain to anger Muslim critics of the invasion, whose claims that a Christian superpower was trying to overthrow an Islamic nation were rebuffed at the time by the White House.

One of the top-secret 'worldwide intelligence updates', which were hand-delivered to Mr Bush by Mr Rumsfeld, includes an image of an F-18 Hornet fighter jet roaring off from the deck of an aircraft carrier.

On it were the words of Psalm 139-9-10: 'If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast, O Lord.'









More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html

Previous DU thread about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3880998

[BuelahWitch]

26. He said a general said that

And then there was Bush's remarks about "Gog and Magog."

[riqster]

80. Ah yes.

Operation Iraqi Liberation.

[merrily]

126. How did we make out on the oil?

Could have been Dimson working out his Daddy issues or insuring his own re-election.

[MellowDem]

5. Islam is a bigoted, conservative religion...

It's no surprise many liberals think it's terrible. Anyone who identifies with such a bigoted religion, much less defends it, automatically loses respect with me, just like when someone tells me they're a conservative. The texts of Islam are filled with explicitly horrible shit that can't be interpreted away (though liberal Muslims try).

Someone would only be surprised by liberals contempt of Islam if they are blinded by religious privilege. And there's lots of religious privilege, especially in the US, especially in the Democratic Party, a moderately conservative, very religious party, in a very conservative, very religious country (for the developed world). So, you have some liberals in the US defending Islam because religion is treated as sacrosanct.

Islam, a terribly regressive, fucked up, misogynistic religion, defended by some liberals. The power of religious privilege.

[Luminous Animal]

9. Christianity is, for the most part a bigoted conservative religion.

[MellowDem]

11. Agree wholeheartedly, all the Abrahamic religions are...

Thankfully, there aren't many Christian theocracies around anymore.

[Scootaloo]

17. There don't really need to be

All that work has been done, Christianity has been established by brutal force across europe, the western hemisphere, Australia and Oceania, and sub-Saharan Africa. Competitors have been obliterated, their wealth plundered, their adherents burned, tortured, shot, stabbed, hanged, and drowned.

we now live in sucessor-states that carry on the same policies of conquest, killing, and plunder. The success over the "infidels" was so thorough that there was really no need to maintain the various forms of inquisition; Can you take five steps in the United States and not be surrounded by reminders of the religiosity of this country? You can't even spend pocket change without it being shouted in your face by the coinage.

That we no longer use the cross as a banner when wading into battle is more product of compromise among the christian hordes, rather than an abandonment of the principle - there would be more time spent fighting over what demonination's cross variety would be flown, than spent on fighting the infidels abroad, after all. Even so, we need only tun our heads a slight degree to find someone, somehwee, using the US flag as a stand-in for religious symbolism. God and country, represented in one patch of cloth.

So no, there is just the one christian theocracy standing as such in the modern world. but there are absolute scads of inheritors, peopled and staffed by Christians, gnashing their teeth and howling for blood of the infidel just the same.

[closeupready]

21. Brilliant truth. Thanks.

[ProfessorGAC]

94. I'll Dissent

You can it brilliant truth. I can it one poster's opinion. One which, to me, seems to be a position for the sake of taking a position.

[closeupready]

96. In the face of so many ignorant remarks on this topic,

the truth here is to consider the context and history of the violence going on, including the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, Manifest Destiny, the Ku Klux Klan, the Ottoman Empire, the partition of India, and how Western colonialism and Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian efforts to not only convert but dispossess and even exterminate 'pagans' and other non-white, indigenous people.

Educated people know plenty about these historic events and how they brutalized, and how they left a violent legacy behind.

[ProfessorGAC]

97. It's Still An Opinion

Which is what i said. Interesting definitions you have

BTW: I know the history, and in VERY broad context, i agree with you. Except the statute of limitations on some of the bad behavior has to be less than 1000 years. To suggest there is some parallel between the 21st century and the crusades is a logical reach of ridiculous lengths.

I think your angst is miplaced.

[closeupready]

98. Sorry, what question are you referring to?

There is no statute of limitations on bad behavior which forms cultures and damages relationships between them. Statute of Limitations, besides, is a legal term, and in fact, does not mean that the bad behavior didn't happen.

But as we've seen time and again with bigots, they seek to impose such a SoL on discrediting facts when they've happened at some arbitrary point of time in the past.

[MellowDem]

24. I won't argue Christianity is fucked up...

But a lot of the successor states aren't that Christian anymore, and becoming less so, in some most people don't identify as Christian.

Christianity doesn't have the power it used to, and that has been a very good thing.

[Arugula Latte]

108. And now we're under the thumbs of five rightwing Catholic males on the Supreme Court.

A pox on all the Abrahamic religions. They've caused untold death and misery, promulgated ignorance and stomped down science and progress, helped put women, gays, and the poor under the thumbs of a select few grand male poohbahs (sometimes wearing hats that literally look like giant penises -- see The Pope), sparked wars and conflict and terrorism, and on and on.

[CJCRANE]

19. The GOP is full of wannabe theocrats.

They want Biblical Law which is virtually the same as (fundamentalist) Sharia Law.

The problem is fundamentalists of any strike.

[LawDeeDah]

12. Yes, it is.

considering the history of the world, 'christian' nations have murdered and plundered the most - and a lot of that was for conversions sake. It shouldn't take a degree in history to know that, but apparently so.

[FrodosPet]

42. I was raised as a Baptist

I left the church and now consider myself an agnostic.

So far, no one has charged me with apostasy.

[Prophet 451]

55. Only because the law stops them

The only reason fundie Muslims can get away with this shit is because the PtB in much of the MidEast is the Muslim version of the KKK. If the church still had the power to enforce it, you can be damn sure they'd burn you as an apostate.

[EX500rider]

33. However you can leave Christianity and not get your head chopped off..

....or do jail time or lose your kids.

Islam not so much.

[Prophet 451]

56. No, you can leave Islam and do that

in the western world. The problem isn't the religion itself. That's no more or less horrible than any other Abrahamic faith. The problem is that the Muslim version of the KKK has power in much of the MidEast and enforces their fundamentalist version of Islam. If the Enlightenment hadn't broken the church's power in the west, you can be certain that leaving Christianity would get your head chopped off or you imprisoned. We know this because when Christianity has been able to get away with it, that's exactly what has happened.

[shaayecanaan]

65. +1(nt)

[RedCappedBandit]

73. There is a problem with the religions themselves.

Most people just ignore the most fucked up parts of their holy books.

[Prophet 451]

89. True

I'm a Luciferian Satanist. One reason for that is not ignoring the nasty parts of the holy books. That's also why our faith doesn't have a holy book (at least, not in the conventional sense).

That said, everyone's belief system looks cuckoo from teh outside.

[Scootaloo]

15. And what does that make Muslims, in your view? Terrible, regressive, fucked-up bigots.

because of course all you know about them is that they practice Islam. You have no fucking clue what 2.5 billion people think, feel, or do. You have no basis of understanding what's going on in their lives, except that they practice Islam - and of course, you have just described what you think of that.

Why do liberals speak out against islamophobic bullshit like this? I dunno, a sense of history perhaps. One doesn't need to be a great scholar of history to see what happens when entire populations are damned and vilified because of their faith. Especially when that dehumanization is coming from a heavily-armed people with a keen interest in the resources held by the vilified population.

[MellowDem]

22. If you think conservatism is fucked up and bigoted...

And this is said on here all the time, with good reason, does that mean you think all people who identify as conservatives are fucked up bigots?

I understand some people identify as conservative without having many conservative views. Same with Muslims.

Stop laying down so many straw men. If you don't have an argument, admit it, don't argue against stuff you make up.

Conservatism doesn't even have any sacred texts, but religions do, so it makes it even easier to identify what position a religion holds. And the Koran and Hadiths have terrible stuff in them.

Is there such a thing as being conservaphobic? A naziphobe? That's how ridiculous the term islamophobic is. And worse, it's attempting to corral the language of an oppressed minority (homophobic) for a belief system that is explicitly bigoted. That takes some real balls. Imagine the nazis getting angry at "Fascistphobes". The real analogy would be muslimphobe, and even then, you're talking about a religious identity, which can be chosen, not an inherent sexual preference.

One doesn't need to be a scholar to understand how bad ideas that can't be criticized because they are considered sacred is bad for society. What's disgusting is the hypocrisy of some on be left who are willing to defend a conservative religion because it's a religion. Religious privilege is so prevalent in the US.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. not all stupid people are Consevatives...

But all Conservatives are stupid people....or something along those lines John Stuart Mill

[shaayecanaan]

39. Do you feel the same way about anti-Semitism?

After all, Jewish religious texts frown upon homosexuality much more than the Quran does (the Torah proscribes the death penalty for homosexuality, the Quran does not).

[MellowDem]

43. Isn't Semite an ethnicity?

Anti-Judaism would be more on point. And it's not surprising liberals would find all the Abrahamic religions to be terrible, Judaism included. If your god commanded the death of homosexuals, promoted slavery and ordered genocide, then your religion is pretty screwed up and bigoted. Religious privilege blinds people to that obvious point. And people avoid talking franky about religion in order to avoid these inconvenient parts of the belief systems they identify with.

[shaayecanaan]

54. Anti-Semitism generally means anti-Jewish sentiment (nt)

[merrily]

131. "If your god commanded the death of homosexuals, promoted slavery and ordered genocide,"

That wasn't the God of the Bible. Maybe some liars said He did.

[shaayecanaan]

141. He certainly ordered the death penalty for homosexuals

proscribed slavery if not quite promoted it, and ordered the genocide of the Amalekites, which given their contemporary absence may well have been successful.

[merrily]

149. Are you speaking of the Koran or the Bible?

I have never read the Koran, so I don't know.

It's been quite a while since I've read the bible, but I don't recall God commanding of the death penalty for homosexuals in the Bible. God says it's abomination and, I grant you, that is bad enough. But, I don't recall "his" commanding anyone to put homosexuals to death.

Proscribe means things like prohibit or condemn, so I am not sure what you meant to say about God and slavery. In the Bible, however, God doesn't condemn slavery; and it should be condemned, but I don't think God commanded anyone to take slaves, either.

I have no recollection of the Amalekites, but I just did a key word search and did not come up with God commanding the Jews to kill all the Amalekites. https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=amalekites&qs_version=KJV&limit=50

I did not however, read every chapter in its entirety, only the 23 verses that the keyword search turned up.

[still_one]

177. actually in the old testament it does. However it is not followed by the Judeo-Christians today

and hasn't been for quite some time.

However, in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and most middle eastern countries, an openly gay person will be executed

[merrily]

182. In which book and chapter of the Old Testament does God command humans to kill homosexuals?

Because all I recall from reading the Old Testament is what I posted and, as my other replies indicate, I really do like to get my facts straight, especially the issue of homosexuality. (Not to slight the Amalekites, whoever they may have been, but that issue seems to be moot and most women are out of the closet as being female.)

Most things in the Bible are commands to the people addressed (even the command to wipe out the Amalekites), with the penalty for disobedience being in the hands of God, as in Thou shalt not.....

There is only one example I recall where God says, "Don't do this--and don't let anyone else in your town do it, either." That would be observing the Sabbath within the gates of Israel. Even then, I don't recall God commanding that humans impose a penalty on the violator.

Zealots have interpreted such things to mean they should go on rampages, Paul murdering Christians (NT) being an example. However, there was, of course, no OT command to murder Christians.

Anyway, I would really appreciate Chapter and verse, literally.

[still_one]

183. Definitely in Leviticus. 20:13.

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

The revised standard edition translation goes like this in the same area:
"If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death-their bloodguilt is upon them."

Leviticus has all kinds of laws, and violations of those laws usually have quite severe penalties.

[merrily]

184. That is NOT a command to humans to kill homosexuals or to kill anyone.

It is either a prophesy that God will kill them or, if the words are attributed to God, a promise that God will kill them. Otherwise, it would say, you shall put them to death--and "surely" would not appear in the command. For example, Thou shalt not commit adultery doesn't say Thous shalt surely not commit adultery.

I don't know of any command that assumes all humans will surely obey it. Even the command to kill the Amalekites was not obeyed to the letter by the Israeites (and God was supposedly pissed off that the Israelites left some survivors).

Again, granted, it is heinous for words attributed to God to go even that far as to homosexuals, but it is most important for the benefit of homosexuals, I think, to realize that the Bible is not ordering Jews or Christians or any humans to kill homosexuals. (unless you have other wording to that effect).

Amalekites aside, the Bible usually says God will judge and punish, as opposed to deputing humans to murder for the alleged love of God. I think that is a very important point for those who value gay people make to zealots.

I realize it also may help gays and women to attack the Bible, esp. the words attributed to God, but pointing out that God is NOT telling Christian zealots (or any zealots) to murder gays come first in my priorities. The reason being-aside from the overarching issue of life and death-- that I feel it somewhat more likely that I can drive home that point than that I will be successful in getting anyone to disavow the Bible entirely. For example, adultery is one of the Big Ten, yet Jesus stops the stoning by humans of the adulterous woman. Whether Jesus thinks "a just God" will have no option but to condemn her to hell is another question, but Jesus clearly thinks it is not for humans to punish her. Why would homosexuality, not even one of the Big Ten, be different.

And that is something I can argue to even the most rigid Christian. In fact, the more literally the Christian wants to take the Bible, the better I can do with my textual argument. Sadly (for me), I don't have the clout of that person's pastor, but maybe I can at least raise doubt. If I use the "your God is a bloody murderer with no redeeming qualities" approach though, I am not going to get anywhere. For just one thing, there is the "God is merciful, but just" meme.

BTW, I like to compare everything with the first King James translation. I am sure the King's translators had an agenda, but I have no idea what it was and it's probably moot now. I have seen more modern translations make modifications to the Bible that are very much lined up with the agenda of the religious right, esp. as to gays and women. So, I like to compare wording with a translation published when neither of those things was controversial (because no one was pushing back on behalf of gays or women).

[still_one]

186. You do not know what you are talking about. That is the old testament, in the first 5 books of

Moses. It is very clear. Your twisting of a primitive people to have a civilized outlook or interpretation is wrong.

This is no prophecy, and by you using the word in this context, you do not understand Leviticus.

The Mosaic Law prescribed the death penalty for homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), and to deny it, is denying the reality.

There are all kinds of laws in the old testament which prescribe capital punishment. If it makes you feel better to ignore the reality of that fact, go for it.

You obviously don't understand what the old testament is about, and are in denial.

[merrily]

189. If it were "very clear, you would have been able to provide language I could interpret

in only one way. You did not provide very clear language.

Your reaction to your own failure is to insult me, but that does not prove your point either. The entire Bible is filled with commandments for which the death penalty (at the hands of humans) is not prescribed. Also filled with references to humans not judging and punishment being for God, not for humans.

The language in I Samuel about the Amalekites, which I found myself, is unequivocal. Provide language that is similarly unequivocal about God commanding humans to kill homosexuals and you will have a point. Until then, you don't whether you get that or not.

[still_one]

190. Which part of "they shall be put to death don't you understand"?

There is no historical or biblical scholar with any kind of credibility who would interpret it any other way

Just the previous post you made speculating that it could be a prophesy tells me you don't understand Leviticus

There is absolutely no ambiguity

[merrily]

191. By whom? When the bible says people shall burn in hell, does it mean that some human is supposed

to see to that?


How many times have you read the Bible cover to cover?

Look, I wrote you a careful, totally civil post, explaining my position and the reason I thought it was (a) important and (b) more important than God bashing and you've done nothing but insult me since. So, I already wasted much too much time on posting to you about this.

You don't rebut anything I said though. BTW, this claim is both untrue and not a rebuttal.

There is no historical or biblical scholar with any kind of credibility who would interpret it any other way

In any event, you have my analysis and my reasons for it and I get your opinion of me. For me, that means we're done on this thread. You, of course, are free to insult me again. Buh bye.

[still_one]

192. Ignorance is bliss, huh

[merrily]

152. Okay. I did some additional checking.

The reason that I did not find the command to kill the Amalekites (in retaliation for what they had done to Israelites) was that I did search Bible Gateway for Amalekites and not also for Amalek. In I Samuel 15 (KJV), some very brutal orders are indeed attributed to God.

[DanTex]

29. Are there any religions that aren't?

It seems your problem is with religion, fundamentalist religion specifically, and not with Islam in particular. The Old Testament is basically one genocide after another.

[Nye Bevan]

32. Buddhism? (nt)

[gollygee]

72. Even they have a history of discimination

Here's one example, but there are more: http://blhrri.org/blhrri_e/news/new107/new10703.html

It does seem to affect all religious to some extent or another.

[still_one]

178. Not sure if those in Sri Lanka would agree with your assessment

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/world/asia/sri-lanka-muslim-aluthgama/

[Prophet 451]

53. Look, if you're condemning all Abrahamic religions equally...

...then fair enough. At least you're being consistent. But those arguing that Islam is especially bad either haven't read the Bible or fail to appreciate the power the church lost during the Enlightenment. Phil Robertson would be merrily burning unbelievers if the Enlightenment hadn't stripped the church of the power to do so.

That said, I'm part of an Abrahamic faith. I'm a Luciferian Satanist, which acknowledges the god of Abraham, we just hate the bastard.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. The god of Abraham, and of Isacc and of Ishmael......

You seem to think the enlightenment was not something created by humans intentionally. It was not like a piece of moss we found stuck to a tree which magically stripped power from the clerics. It is not by chance or by luck that Phil Robertson types lack power here and hold power elsewhere.

The fact that if mules could fly we might still be burning witches is not really as vital a thing to ponder as why are some people still burning witches? An even better question would be how can we persuade them to stop burning witches?

[Prophet 451]

88. OK, that's a fair question

I think one way we do so is by promoting and supporting the more progressive voices within Islam. The last ten years has shown that trying to impose modernity by force simply isn't going to work (if it did, I'd suggest that). Trying to get 1.6 billion Muslims to give up their faith isn't going to work. Pushing the more progressive (or, at least, non-radical) Muslims might work. It has a chance, at least, which is more than the others do.

And I don't think the Enlightenment was created intentionally. It was a confluence of events happening at much the same time that worked together to create. Every piece was intentional but the whole was a complete accident.

[Shoulders of Giants]

153. Bill Maher has spent far more time condemning Christianity than Islam.

[Rhinodawg]

63. "Islam is a terribly regressive, fucked up, misogynistic religion"

And I say if it's followers like that , I say go for it.

My take... "Islam, a terribly regressive, fucked up, misogynistic religion" that too frequently leads to violence against gays , women and non believers.

[Blue_In_AK]

13. That article is worth reading all the way through.

It expresses pretty much exactly how I feel about this whole controversy. It's always dangerous to demonize "the other" as Bill Maher is doing. We are all people, trying to live our lives as best we can wherever we are. It's usually just an accident of birth whether a person is Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or whatever. You can't help where you're born or what religion your parents happen to be.

And, really, can we blame the Middle Eastern Muslims, especially, for being a little annoyed with us. The US always claims to have the best of intentions when they intervene in such matters, but we always manage to make things worse.

[Scuba]

20. +1,000

[randome]

28. Does 'trying to live our lives' include giving children to men for marriage?

Does it include stoning women for the 'crime' of being raped? Or cutting the hands off thieves? Or killing people because they're gay? Or forcing women to wear veils in public? Mandating a death sentence if you change your religion?

Face it, there is much in Muslim culture that is abhorrent and should rightfully be condemned. It's not as simple as saying 'freedom of religion'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Blue_In_AK]

30. Again, you are cherry-picking the extremist countries

that happen to be Muslim. I agree those are terrible practices, of course, but there are Muslims assimilated throughout all of the more modern countries who no more support or do those things than you or I would.

The danger with public figures such as Bill Maher ranting like he does against Islam is that it promotes hate and distrust against Muslims IN GENERAL that is unwarranted.

[EX500rider]

34. Actually no...laws against leaving Islam in 23 Islamic countries.

[Prophet 451]

58. A couple of centuries ago...

...that would have been true of Christianity in numerous Christian countries.

[leftynyc]

66. All you keep doing is pointing

out that hundreds of years ago Christianity was just as bad. Using that barometer merely proves how backwards Islam is as practiced today in so many countries.

[Prophet 451]

71. You're missing the point

Something important happened in those hundreds of years which broke Christianity's power to kill people. If it were not illegal, I know damn well that Pat Robertson would be killing heretics. The problem is not Islam, it's that A) much of the MidEast is run by people exactly like Robertson and B) they haven't had an Enlightenment to break the fundies power. That might not fit into your narrative of how awful and backwards Islam is, of course, but if it were not for the law, Christianity in the modern United States would be every bit as "backwards" as you claim Islam is.

[leftynyc]

78. But it IS illegal

so you're the one missing the point. Tell me, just how long should the world wait for Islam to catch up to the rest of the world? Should we just keep silent until that happens -stand by and cluck our tongues at gays getting the death penalty. Change only happens when we shine a light on darkness and screaming about it from the rooftops. Ignoring it or deflecting from it by bringing up the darkness from hundreds of years ago serves no purpose whatsoever.

[Prophet 451]

90. No, you are

I'm going to try putting this simply. The reason we bring up the stuff from hundreds of years ago is to point out that, given free reign, Christianity would absolutely be every bit as bad as fundie Islam is. We know that because it has been. Pretending that Islam is uniquely awful is just dishonest and, in a part of the world with a heavy sense of history, laughable.

Pointing out the abuses of radical Muslims doesn't work if you pretend that Christianity's shit doesn't stink. If you want to point out abuses, fine, let's do that. But doing it while pretending that Christianity would not be just as bad and maybe worse simply won't fly.

Moreover, what do you suggest we do? The west has tried imposing modernity by force for the last decade. I don't need to tell you how that turned out. Trying to convince over a billion people to give up their faith isn't going to work. So the only thing that works is advancing, supporting and promoting the moderate figures within Islam and you can't do that when you've already alienated them by treating their faith as uniquely horrible.

[leftynyc]

95. Sigh

Bullshit - your assumption that Christianity would be as bad (and even worse) given free reign is not based on anything at all. They DID change. Comparing Islam today to Christianity hundreds of years ago is a fools errand - the comparison makes no sense whatsoever unless you want to admit that Islam is stuck in the past while Christianity has managed to move forward. BTW - I'm not a member of either religion and couldn't possibly care less if you trash either one.

What should we do? I have no idea how to deal with middle age thinking but I know ignoring it and waiting for it to change is not an answer. Pretending the persecution of gays and women is not happening throughout the Muslim world is just sticking your head in the sand.

[Prophet 451]

100. No, they did not change

Christianity has not changed. The holy book is the same. The fundies are the same. The results would be exactly the same.

Actually, fuck it. I can't be bothered when I can have a constructive dialogue with someone else. Consider yourself to have won and feel free to have the last word.

[leftynyc]

101. Seriously?

The fundies are the same? Please link me to where they are burning witches at the stake, or torturing people who wont convert. Yes, they did change and you pretending otherwise is laughable.

[shaayecanaan]

38. The country that is most notorious for criminalising homosexuality...

is Uganda, an overwhelmingly Christian country. Does that mean that there is much in Christian culture that should rightly be condemned or that there is much in Black/African culture that should rightly be condemned? Your choice.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/179191/its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa

[EX500rider]

45. I'd say they were neck & neck with Iran.

[Prophet 451]

59. EXACTLY!

The problem is not Islam or Christianity, it is fundamentalism.

[leftynyc]

67. Notorious for it being

so rare in Christian countries. Meanwhile the death penalty for being gay is on the books in Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen. Prison sentences for gays in Malaysia, Pakistan and for men in Uzbekistan (not against the law for women). The only Muslim countries that don't have laws on the books are Egypt (where somehow you can still go to jail for it), Indonesia, Iraq, Turkey and females in Uzbekistan. You still want to claim it's the same?

[shaayecanaan]

69. You still want to claim its different?

This is a map of countries with anti-gay statutes on the books. The real commonality is that anti-gay countries tend to be in the poorer regions of the world, with very low levels of access to education and resources and often oppressive governments.

Plenty of Christian countries in there besides Uganda, and quite a few Muslim countries besides the ones you mentioned that dont have anti-gay laws on the books.

[leftynyc]

70. Quite a few Muslim countries

don't have the laws on the books? List them.

[shaayecanaan]

74. look at the map

azerbaijan, for instance. jordan is another. if you cant recognise countries on a map you need more help than i can ever give you.

[leftynyc]

77. Getting snippy because someone

calls you on your own words is very bad form. You used the words QUITE A FEW. When asked, you mention two. Now, in what universe is 2 quite a few? Are you going to deny that in MOST Muslim countries there are laws against being gay? Are you going to deny that in MOST of those countries the penalty is death? Shall we now move on to the death penalty for leaving Islam? Would you like to deflect from that by blaming Christians also?

[shaayecanaan]

109. I called you on your own bullshit statement

Syria is another Islamic country without anti-gay laws. So is Kyrgyzstan. Ironically, Kyrgyzstan may be about to pass an anti-gay law due to Russian rather than Muslim influence (it would not make same-sex relations themselves illegal but rather "propaganda" relating to those relations).

Russia, its worth pointing out, is another overwhelmingly Christian country. You still maintain that anti-gay laws in Christian countries are "exceedingly rare"? In fact, quite a few other predominantly Christian countries prohibit homosexuality:-

Angola
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Ethiopia
Ghana
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Malawi (enforcement of law suspended)
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Sao Tome
Seychelles
South Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Those are the anti-gay Christian countries in Africa alone.

[leftynyc]

137. No idea why you're quoting "exceedingly rare"

as I never used those words at all. Trying to conflate my posts with another poster is dishonest. I'm concentrating on the countries that will PUT YOU TO DEATH for being gay.


"Compared to last year’s report, where we listed the 77 countries prosecuting people on ground of their sexual orientation, this year you will find ’only’ 76 in the same list, including the infamous 5 which put people to death for their sexual orientation: Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen [plus some parts of Nigeria and Somalia]," wrote ILGA Co-Secretary General Gloria Careaga-Perez. "One country less compared to the 2009 list may seem little progress, until one realizes that it hosts one-sixth of the human population, as the country in question is India."

Read more: http://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com/2010/06/ilga-76-countries-ban-gay-sex-7-have.html#ixzz3G0yytfDT


I also mostly focus on the scary high percentages that believe you should be killed for leaving Islam - a subject I see you wish to ignore completely which surprises exactly nobody. Keep pretending it's not happening. That'll certainly help.

[shaayecanaan]

138. Probably because you used the word "rare"

about five posts upstream. That was false. You also said that Muslim countries that did not criminalise homosexuality were limited to five in number. That was also false.

I'm concentrating on the countries that will PUT YOU TO DEATH for being gay.

You're only concentrating on that now, mainly as a result of having made outrageously false claims throughout this thread.

[leftynyc]

139. Keep ignoring the reality

Because that certainly helps your argument. Meanwhile, here in the real world - I only see gays from Muslim countries hanging from cranes by their necks. And when are you going to acknowledge those who support the death penalty for leaving Islam is a ridiculously high percentage. Sputtering about how Christian countries are just as bad (in the face of all actual evidence) just shows how correct Bill Maher was on his show. Liberals have a blind spot for Islam and if these things were happening in a Christian country, this board would have convulsions from being repulsed.

As far as false statements - that's only in your mind. It's in Muslim countries that gays get killed for being gay and if you would remember back to the Uganda situation - this board went absolutely crazy when they wanted to put those anti-gay laws on the books (rightly so). But people getting KILLED for being gay - that's excused with pathetic comparisons that don't hold up to reality. I'll say it again - Bill Maher was right.

[shaayecanaan]

140. You keep ignoring it yourself

Meanwhile, here in the real world - I only see gays from Muslim countries hanging from cranes by their necks.

You must have very selective eyesight then. The last people to reportedly be executed for same sex relations in Iran were three men in 2011, and they were the first in some time and had been convicted of robbery and kidnapping besides. Israel killed that many Muslims during an average lunch break in Cast Lead and Protective Edge.

This from the wiki article on LGBT people in Iran:-

LGBT rights in Iran since the 1930s[1] have come in conflict with the penal code. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by imprisonment, corporal punishment, or in some cases of sodomy, even execution.[2] Gay men have faced stricter enforcement actions under the law than lesbians.[3] Iran insists that it does not execute people for homosexuality, and that homosexuals who have been executed have either committed rape, murder, or drug trafficking.[4]

and

Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the issue of transsexuality in Iran had never been officially addressed by the government. Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, transsexual individuals were officially recognized by the government and allowed to undergo sex reassignment surgery. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. The government provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance, and a sex change is recognised on the birth certificate.[16] Transsexual women in Iran may live as women until they have surgery and get married to men after the surgery.

Granted, that is still a deeply flawed approach to the issue, but it is nevertheless worth noting that neither the US nor Israel allow a transgender individual to revise their gender identity on their birth certificate.

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

I imagine for one-eyed Muslim haters the above information wouldnt make the slightest bit of difference, but for others it is hopefully food for thought.

[leftynyc]

146. This is becoming surreal

This is from August of THIS YEAR

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/12/iran-s-new-gay-executions.html

And now you want to deflect from this to Israel and the US? I would think you'd be embarrassed at the arguments you're using. And I'm guessing you would consider yourself a friend of the gay community even though you continue to want to ignore what's happening. I mean, aren't you the least bit embarrassed to comparing the changing of a birth certificate to hanging people by their necks from cranes? You certainly should be. But I see you have no wish to stay on topic here and are merely sputtering and lashing out about Israel because Bill Maher was absolutely right in saying liberals (not all but certainly you) wish to ignore the problems in the Muslim world and call anyone who points them out a Muslim hater - just as you just did to me.

[shaayecanaan]

150. As your link makes clear its not known whether they were executed for being gay.

Apparently there were four men executed. At least two of them appear to have been journalists. They were all charged with "rape and fraud". The other two men were accused of running an underground network concerned with corrupting young women. The other two were accused of sodomy, amongst various other things. It seems to have been an execution of two sets of brothers. I think the family name of the two you refer to also seems to be an Azeri name.

Very hard to glean what the real story is. Obviously if they are brothers they were unlikely to have been a gay couple. There may well have been truth in the accusations that at least two of them were pimping, but the reference to journalism makes me suspect that this may have been politically motivated.

Whatever the motivation, its a terrible thing and the Iranian regime should hang its head in shame - but these sorts of extra-judicial killings are stock in trade for most autocratic regimes in the world. If a Christian regime did it we would not assume that all Christians supported such things, but we are far too willing to do so in the case of Muslims.

http://www.dadfars.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=2507&articleType=ArticleView&articleId=87266#

[leftynyc]

158. Your continued deflection

from the reality of what gay life is in a Muslim country is noted. This has become pointless as you seem to be doing your best to prove Bill Maher right - you simply cannot acknowledge what the reality is and continue to try and deflect from religions or regions that should make any real liberal squirm. Something that would never happen if it weren't Islam being discussed.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Uganda did not impose a death penalty. There are 10 countries that have death penalty for gay people

With the common thread of all that nations that execute homosexuals being Islamic Sharia Law, the list is as follows:

Yemen: According to 1994 penal code, married men can be sentenced to death by stoning for homosexual intercourse. Unmarried men face whipping or one year in prison. Women face up to seven years in prison.
Iran: In accordance with sharia law, homosexual intercourse between men can be punished by death, and men can be flogged for lesser acts such as kissing. Women may be flogged.
Iraq: The penal code does not expressly prohibit homosexual acts, but people have been killed by militias and sentenced to death by judges citing sharia law.
Mauritania: Muslim men engaging in homosexual sex can be stoned to death, according to a 1984 law. Women face prison.
Nigeria: Federal law classifies homosexual behavior as a felony punishable by imprisonment, but several states have adopted sharia law and imposed a death penalty for men. A law signed in early January makes it illegal for gay people countrywide to hold a meeting or form clubs.
Qatar: Sharia law in Qatar applies only to Muslims, who can be put to death for extramarital sex, regardless of sexual orientation.
Saudi Arabia: Under the country’s interpretation of sharia law, a married man engaging in sodomy or any non-Muslim who commits sodomy with a Muslim can be stoned to death. All sex outside of marriage is illegal.
Somalia: The penal code stipulates prison, but in some southern regions, Islamic courts have imposed Sharia law and the death penalty.
Sudan: Three-time offenders under the sodomy law can be put to death; first and second convictions result in flogging and imprisonment. Southern parts of the country have adopted more lenient laws.
United Arab Emirates: Lawyers in the country and other experts disagree on whether federal law proscribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape. In a recent Amnesty International report, the organization said it was not aware of any death sentences for homosexual acts. All sexual acts outside of marriage are banned.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ten-nations-that-still-execute-homosexuals

[still_one]

188. I would say most middle eastern countries also fit in that category also

[Prophet 451]

57. there is much in CHRISTIAN culture that is abhorrent and should rightfully be condemned

If the Enlightenment hadn't broken the churches power in the west, they would still be doing the various nasty things you describe. None of that is unique to Islam or Muslim culture. All of it has been done by Christians back in the days when they could get away with it. The only reason fundie Christianity doesn't do that any more is because the law doesn';t let them.

[Bad Thoughts]

37. This put Maher's bigotry in context:

"Since Iraq didn’t have ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and wasn’t connected to 9/11, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that 300 million Americans brutally attacked and militarily occupied that country for 8 1/2 years, resulting in the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the wounding of millions, and the displacement of millions more, mainly because Iraq’s leader had talked dirty about America. Now that is touchy."

[NYC Liberal]

14. I don't have a problem with Muslims. I have a problem with Islam, as I have a problem

with Christianity, Judaism, and in fact, all religion.

[Prophet 451]

61. Equal opportunity disdain is fair n/t

[Bonobo]

16. Blood libel is an actual thing.

And that's not it.

Language matters.

[NightWatcher]

23. I caught that little tidbit too

It was just kinda slid in there, wasn't it?

[hifiguy]

25. +1

[shaayecanaan]

40. Fair enough

although the term is probably abused a great deal more by pro-Israel supporters than by people like Juan Cole.

[leftynyc]

160. And once again

you simply cannot acknowledge a problem with Islam without bringing another religion into it as if it mitigates the problems. You're doing a yeoman's job in proving Bill Maher was right.

[Rhinodawg]

163. Sam Harris on Bill Maher..

“We have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry toward Muslims as people. That is intellectually ridiculous,”

[get the red out]

27. Maher's great

He's a cynic.

[roguevalley]

35. I'm with affleck on this. Maher is a dipshit who needs to be pounded when he is an ass

[Jefferson23]

36. K&R. Maher has been a bigot for a long time..nothing new in this area. n/t

[hrmjustin]

44. Maher hates all religion.

[Ampersand Unicode]

46. I hate all religion, and so does Maher, but...

...at least Christians won't lop your head off if you draw a Jesus cartoon. Jews won't, even, if you draw Netanyahu as Hitler. ISIS is not a Jesuit missionary group, and Boko Haram isn't a duo of Jewish vaudeville comedians. So yeah, I'd say that Islam is a lot more of a threat and a radical cult than are the other two branches of the Abrahamic faiths. It seems to me that a much, much, MUUUUUUUUCH tinier minority of Muslims are Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Muhammad Ali than there are "peaceful" Christians and Jews. Lots of cafeteria Catholics and "cultural Jews" to counterbalance the tiny sliver of wacky evangelical and Orthodox nutcases. Not saying Maher is right about Zionism, but he is right about Islam.

But as far as I'm concerned, we can drop all three Abrahamic cults into the desert and nuke them all. Add Scientology in for good measure.

[shaayecanaan]

47. History would beg to disagree

[shaayecanaan]

48. sorry, couldnt fit them all on the one page

more Jews massacred by Christians:-

[IMG][/IMG]

That's still only about half, but you get the idea.

[oberliner]

103. Ridiculously deceptive numbers

Number of Jews in the world: Around 12-14 million.

Number of Muslims in the world: Around 1.6 billion

Could you recreate that graph with percentages rather than total number of people in light of the fact that there are over 100 times more Muslims than Jews in the world.

[shaayecanaan]

115. that has to be the most pathetic objection that you have ever made nt

[still_one]

179. Interesting that I don't see number of Muslims killed by Muslims in that assessment, nor do I see

number of Christians killed by Muslims, nor do I see a source

and I can tell you the number of Jews killed by Muslims in the last 500 years is more than one thousand.

[shaayecanaan]

180. read it again

I said massacred. I didn't include routine criminal acts or deaths of wartime combatants.

[Prophet 451]

51. Only because the law stops them

The PtB in much of the MidEast is the Muslim equivalent of the KKK and if you don't think Pat Robertson (for example) would be lopping off unbeliever heads if the law allowed it, you're kidding yourself.

[Bluenorthwest]

147. The law, which is made by people, stops them. That means people stop them.

People also prevent bad rulers or they passively allow such things. 'The law' is not a happenstance but an intentional device created to stop violent extremes from holding power. 'The law' very often has to use force to stop them. That means people force them to stop, using the authority of the law as invested in them by other people.
You make it sound like we dug up 'the law' in a hole somewhere by accident and like some talisman of wonder, it protects us from the bad guys without any human effort or intent. That is utter bullshit.

Much of this discussion is in fact about the laws they have which demand mistreatment of minorities and of women. Those laws are also creations of people, devices made for the benefit of those in power. Their anti gay laws are crafted by them, enforced by them, preserved and nurtured by them. Those abuses are intentional actions by free human beings.

[Paladin]

75. Maher made himself a right-wing GOD with his anti-Islamic comments.

I'm wondering whether he'll try for some course correction on tonight's show.

[RedCappedBandit]

76. There is a problem with Islamic fundamentalism in the world today

Acting like the fact that other religions also have bloody history in any way mitigates this fact is disingenuous.

[GoneOffShore]

83. You got it - It's shame that lots of people can't see this.

From the Pew report:

Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center. But many supporters of sharia say it should apply only to their country’s Muslim population.......
Indeed, the survey finds that support for making sharia the law of the land is often higher in countries where the constitution or basic laws already favor Islam over other religions.2 Majorities in such countries say sharia should be enshrined as official law, including at least nine-in-ten Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and Iraq (91%). By comparison, in countries where Islam is not legally favored, roughly a third or fewer Muslims say sharia should be the law of the land. Support is especially low in Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%)......
In South Asia, support for applying religious law to family and property disputes is coupled with strong backing for severe criminal punishments, such as cutting off the hands of thieves (median of 81%) and the death penalty for Muslims who renounce their faith (76%). In the Middle East-North Africa region, medians of more than half favor strict criminal penalties (57%) and the execution of those who convert from Islam to another faith (56%).

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

[Prophet 451]

91. The key word is "fundamentalism"

Christianity would be every bit as bad, if not worse, if the law allowed it. And that's not to mitigate the abuses of fundie Muslims but acting like their religion is uniquely bloodthirsty (or shrugging it off with a jaunty "but that was ages ago&quot is insulting and just alienates the moderates. And it's going to have to be the moderates within Islam who modernise the faith because we've tried imposing modernity by force for the last decade.

[RedCappedBandit]

93. I agree and disagree.

Fundamentalism is essentially defined as the literal interpretation of a religion's holy scripture. If actually believing what your scripture says is as dangerous as it has proven to be with major Abrahamic religions, then there is an inherent flaw in those religions. So it's not just fundamentalism, it is the actual theology. It's only when these religions are interpreted in a modern and progressive way that they actually become benevolent.

I agree that Christianity *would* be every bit as bad, as it has indisputably been in the past. Fortunately we have somewhat of a handle on it, and in many industrialized nations religions seems to be falling to the wayside. The issue is that the same can't be said for a significant portion of the Muslim world, yet. That's why it's discussion worthy, IMO.

I agree that moderates within Islam bear responsibility for modernizing their religion. That is what must happen, and again, that's why trying to inhibit this discussion is, in my opinion, counter-productive. In fairness, Maher's insensitive way of approaching the subject may also be counter-productive, but I do think the controversy surrounding his words is at least somewhat attributable to a misinterpretation of what he's actually saying.

[Prophet 451]

99. OK, we have a constructive dialogue here

Now, I'm defining "fundamentalism" slightly differently to you. I was defining it as an unusually strict and unforgiving adherence to the holy book, combined with a sense of being constantly embattled. A distinction without a difference? Maybe. However, but the Amish (and, I believe, the Quakers, but I could be wrong) also interpret their Bible literally and cause no trouble to anyone. Hell, my own faith (Luciferian Satanism) is technically an Abrahamic faith (as we acknowledge the god of Abraham, we just hate the bastard) and we don't even have a holy book, the faith being entirely experiential.

I would suggest the reason so many Muslims in the MidEast poll as having such regressive attitudes is mostly because of their environment. Saudi (for example) Muslims are living under an absolute monarchy where there are literal secret police enforcing the fundie version of Islam. I would not be at all surprised if at least some of the respondants were afraid that the survey taker was secret police out to catch them in being insufficiently fundie. On top of that, there is very little media freedom in those countries. What gets broadcast is only what the fundies approve. Finally, your country and mine have been periodically bombing the crap out of them for twenty years in your case and about eighty in ours. So you take an average Muslim. Let's call him Aziz. Aziz might not be especially well-educated, he's probably not acquainted with more modernist religions. Now you feed him a continual diet of of stories that the west and, by extension, modernity, is a terrible, awful, no good thing.

Are you familiar with the concept of "incestuous amplification"? It's a psychological term that describes what happens when someone gets all or most of their information from sources that agree with them. Gradually, their opinions get more and more extreme. Take a bunch of guys who think Bush was an OK president. Lock them in a room together for a while and eventually, they'll come out claiming that W was the best president ever, he should be on Mt. Rushmore and the one dollar bill (and yes, this has already happened with Reagan). That's why those who get all their news from the conservative bubble get so extreme. So take our Muslim. He's fed these stories and he believes them because, at this point, he has no reason not to. And these stories are everywhere and the secret police seem to be everywhere. The only thing that really compares to it is Soviet Russia, that level of paranoia and distrust.

Now, drop a bomb on the next village over. Or maybe his son. Suddenly, modernity isn't just bad, it's trying to kill him! And his sense of what it means to be a proper Saudi is also heavily tied up in this fundie version of his religion because the rise of Wahabbiism was also the rise of Arabic nationalism. Consider also, the psychological bias that means that if we hold a view, not only will we resist correction when that view is wrong, the correction will make us hold that belief even more strongly. And remember that humans will instinctively obey a perceived authority (Milgram proved that) and are instinctively conformist (Asche proved that). And everyone around Aziz is faithfully parroting the government (fundie) line (for all those reasons). And remember also that the Arabic culture places a lot of store in history and the history of the west's primary religion (Christianity) is, shall we say, not very good in that area (And when we haven't been bombing, we've been propping up tyrants). He's scared, he's angry and the fundies are telling him the same thing fundies always do: It's not your fault. It's their fault. If they'd just do this or that or adhere to this religion more strongly, everything would be fine. And that's how a normal Muslim in those countries, our little Aziz, ends up believing such extreme stuff.

Maher being so abrasive about it actually sets the discussion back. I'm of the opinion that Hitchens was the worst thing to ever happen to atheism. Not because of his message (Dawkins, among others, has the same message) but because his smug, sneering condescension was alienating to everyone except the internet atheists who try and copy that smug, sneering condescension. Yes, there is a time for forceful argument but there is a difference between arguing forcefully and being a prick about it. Sagan, among numerous others, mastered the difference wonderfully. Tyson does the same on a slightly different subject (I have no idea what Tyson's religious views are). Honey and Vinegar.

[RedCappedBandit]

106. All good points worth bringing in to the discussion!

Within this context it's much easier to see the issue of Islamic fundamentalism being related to geopolitical considerations as opposed to simply the religion itself, at least in regards to the distinction between Islamic fundamentalism and that of other religions in contemporary society.

The Amish are an interesting consideration, but they strictly adhere to some facets of their faith and not others. I wouldn't necessarily view them as fundamentalists in the same light as some others.
But yes, I am in agreement with you. The conditions people in the Middle East (and elsewhere) face, largely as a result of the west's imperialism, play a significant role in the development of the fundamentalism we abhor. In a nutshell it boils down to poverty and control.

Taking the religions themselves at face value, I think they're all (at least the Abrahamic religions) pretty sinister. So that does bring up the question of why one particular religion would suffer from fundamentalism at a greater rate. Which you've explained pretty well. Economic and cultural factors need to be overcome to allow the modernization of the religion as a whole, which I do still believe needs to occur. But the noteworthy distinction is that modernization can occur; there's nothing inherently unique to Islam that prevents it from being able to do so as other religions have.

[shaayecanaan]

124. Yes, and its the responsibility of liberals here to contest the views of bigots like Maher (nt)

[GoneOffShore]

85. You're wrong and so is Cole.

[shaayecanaan]

107. Brilliant (nt)

[GoneOffShore]

110. So, I was going to craft a completely reasoned, cited and rational response to your OP

But decided that it really wasn't worth my time or effort.
Then I was going to indulge in an ad hominem attack but decided it also wasn't worth the alert and possible consequences.

I'll leave you with two things: religion is to society, what masturbation is to the procreation of the species.

And this:

I do realize that many don't like Hitch because of his stance on the Iraq war, but he really did get the nastiness of Islam's ideas.

[shaayecanaan]

116. I am sure that it would have been a devastating response

Truly, it will be one of my great lamentations that I never got to hear it.

[GoneOffShore]

118. Bet you didn't watch the Christopher Hitchens video either.

That would intrude on your world view of Islam with unfortunate facts, causing you to run around the room with your fingers in your ears going la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you-la-la-la.

[shaayecanaan]

119. I had heard it before

and I am not a Muslim, or a believer in any religion. To the extent that Hitchens or Dawkins or anyone else states the myths of Islam to be false or absurd I have no disagreement with them.

The thread is not concerned with the myths of the religion itself, but by the willing eagerness of many liberals to demonise its practitioners in ways that they would find unpalatable were they of another religion or culture.

[closeupready]

120. +1. I discovered anecdotally from my thread "how many muslims do you know"

that a significant percentage of people whose names you'd recognize from other topics relating to Islam ... that they know either no muslims or else very few, and that in some of those cases, they live in US areas that are, essentially, whitebread/all-American.

It's one thing to be limited by the parameters of your living environment, and blame, say, Martians or Klingons (or, in this case, muslims) for your modest circumstances. It's another to realize that your environment limits your knowledge of the world, of other people, and to actually do something to change that, or to even keep your mind open to the possibility that you are wrong about matters. Most of Islam's critics here on DU would fit in the first category, IMO.

[GoneOffShore]

121. Islam, more than any other religion at this time,

is about demonizing or eliminating anyone who would dare to criticize said religion or its adherents.

The sooner that people get that Islam, which has not had a reform movement, is a violent ideology, the safer we will all be.

Do you actually think that if the adherents of Islam (and that includes the Taliban, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Boko Haram, plus 'moderate' Muslims - http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/) prevailed they would actually allow Enlightenment ideas to survive?

It's really time to look at all religions (Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Christianity et al.) as viral memes whose central mission is to destroy those who don't adhere to said meme. Though Islam seems to be taking the lead in the race to the top of the list for most bloodthirsty.

[Rhinodawg]

125. Wow. Even moderate Muslims ?

[GoneOffShore]

130. Look at the Pew poll.

[sibelian]

143. So no-one's actually responsible for all those hangings of gay people?

The rampant misogyny isn't anyone's fault because supposing it is is "othering"?

One day I'll figure out how the acting ranking system works in the Great Sympathy Competition.

[YoungDemCA]

92. The imperialistic foreign policy of the US government and the incredibly powerful corporations...

...that are intimately linked to American state violence and conquest around the world, are far more responsible for the conditions that create the seeds of anger and hatred toward the US around the world than Islam, or any other religion-other than the religion of capitalism.

The IMF, the World Bank, the WTO...these are not "neutral" institutions. These are the international expressions of the advanced industrial capitalist countries' power and hegemony over the rest of the world. Yet they are never mentioned in discussions about "Why do 'they' hate us?"

Finally, all of the horrible things that Western countries and corporations do to the rest of the world-and in some cases, to their own populations-is in the name of "freedom" and "Western, liberal, democratic values." But the only absolutely necessary condition for a country to be supported by the US and other advanced industrial capitalist countries is for them to be militarily and economically allied with the Western countries-which in many cases, means that the US is propping up awful dictators and despots (Because after all, it's just "good business,&quot .

[intaglio]

102. Before you use the term "Blood Libel" please check what it is

From Google dictionary (search parameter "define blood libel&quot

an accusation that Jewish people used the blood of Christians in religious rituals, especially in the preparation of Passover bread, that was perpetrated throughout the Middle Ages and (sporadically) until the early 20th century.

Equating Muslims with Jews is as bad (in some Muslim minds) as equating Jews with Nazis

[oberliner]

104. The usual crap from Juan Cole

Say anything negative about any facet of Islam and face his wrath (usually in the form of top 10 lists).

[GoneOffShore]

111. ^This^

[shaayecanaan]

114. and the usual pro forma response from you

though seemingly more tired and emotional these days. Its been a long night?

[sibelian]

144. Pro forma junk begets pro forma rebuttal.

Them's the breaks.

[Rex]

105. Juan Cole

Pass.

[GoneOffShore]

112. And ^this^

Thank you.

[Principled Peter]

113. Bil has a blind spot for Holy Israel

Anything that opposes it is, by definition, evil in his view.

[True Blue Door]

122. This is just a nasty, and unreasoning big of character assassiantion.

He notes the statistical fact about attitudes toward murdering apostates in the Muslim world, and he notes that there is no symmetrical attitude of violence among other religions on a similar scale. For that you call a courageous truth-teller "bigot" simply because the truth he tells if different from a world you'd be comfrotable with. You need to do some major soul-searching, and some growing up.

The troubles of the Islamic world are...the troubles of the Islamic world, they are not a reflection of bad faith on the part of others who dare to speak of them. That's ass-backwards, Orwellian unlogic.

Speaking a fact you don't like is not a violation. You need to ask yourself why you desperately need it to be treated as such, and why you value the superficial amity between groups more than dealing the truth of the violent horrors that exists because of the state of Islam.

The thousands of people who are oppressed by blasphemy laws, and apostasy laws, and misogynistic laws imposed solely because of Islam would not be freed by your shouting down Westerners who complain about them. You value superficial appearances of social amity more than you value fundamental human rights.

[shaayecanaan]

123. Over 92% of Christian churches in America are racially segregated, whereas less than

fifteen percent of American mosques are (defined as having more than 95% of congregants coming from the same race).

Therefore, American Christians are more racist than Muslims. You can't argue with my statistic, therefore you must accept my argument. QED.

How does that sound?

[merrily]

132. Is he hoping to change Muslims with this tactic? If not, what is his objective?

[Matrosov]

135. I wish fellow progressives would stop..

..defending Islam because of their hatred for Christianity. Every time someone criticizes Islam, too many progressives are quick to bring up Christian offenses from hundreds of years ago.

Religious extremism is always wrong. The major difference is that Christian extremism in Christian countries has for the most part been relegated to the legislatures, where it is fighting a losing battle at that. Islamic extremism is standard practice in many Muslim countries.

When was the last time Christians set out to deliberate kill thousands of innocents in the name of God? (Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia)
When was the last time Christians executed people for not being Christian enough? (ISIS, Iraq and Syria)
In which Christian country are gays executed for being gay? (Iran)
In which Christian country are women treated as mere property, to be covered up and kept at home? (Saudi Arabia)
In which Christian country do girls have their genitals mutilated without anesthesia? (Egypt, Mali)
In which Christian country are underage girls, as young as eight, sold off to middle aged men to marry? (Yemen)
In which Christian country can a married rape victim be stoned to death for adultery? (Somalia, Sudan)

What disturbs me most is the Islamic war again women, which makes the Christian war on women look like a harmless play fight, yet many progressives look the other way or excuse these things are isolated cultural phenoma. Are we not feminists?

It is 100% true that not all Muslims are like that, particularly in many Western countries, and Islamic culture made many positive contributions to society in the past (Algebra, preserving ancient Greek and Roman texts, among many others) but to ignore the evils of Islam in predominantly Muslim countries today is like saying the Confederate States were not racist because not all people living in the CSA believed in slavery.

[shaayecanaan]

136. Off the top of my head

July, 1995. 8,000 Muslim men and boys are massacred by a Christian militia in Bosnia. It was the worst genocide in Europe since the Second World War:-

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

September, 1982. 2,000 Palestinian Muslims are massacred by Christian militiamen aided and supported by the Israel Defence Force:-

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

January, 1976. 1,000 Muslims are overrun and massacred by Christian militiamen in Lebanon:-

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

Coptic Christians circumcise their daughters, there is circumcision in South Sudan as well, amongst Christians and animists as well as Muslims.

To be honest, your post reads as the usual MSM-fed American ignorance.

[sibelian]

145. This all just junk.

Non of it has anything to do with anyone's criticism of Islam. You're just posting dumb, irrelevant shit.

I'm beginning to think you're just homophobic. You don't even seem to be able to bring yourself to admit that Islamic homophobia and misogyny are actually wrong.

[shaayecanaan]

151. That's fine...

I'm beginning to think that you're a racist. Islam is primarily a religion of Africa and the middle East ie people of colour, whereas Christianity is dominant in North America and Europe, ie amongst white people.

All that white hatred for black people needs an outlet now that it can't speak its name any more. So instead of hating them for the colour of their skin, you hate them for their religion. You can profess hatred for Muslims all you want without ever having to confront your own racist prejudices.

[sibelian]

161. Here's what Islam does to gay people:

"You can profess hatred for Muslims all you want without ever having to confront your own racist prejudices." - your words.

[Rhinodawg]

162. Was it REALLY necessary implying he's a "racist"? Really?

I can prove to you that RACISM has nothing to do with it.

A lot of groups have different colors and religions.

Coptic Christians
Maronites
Assyrian Christians
Yazidis
Druze
Alawia
Zoroastrians
Bahais
Shabakis
Samaritans.

Many are dark skinned or "black" (as you put it) and have different religions and the poster has never said one word about them.

If youre going to throw the R word around you may want to start with 11 people who said some really controversial things. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025661130

plus about a hundred other posters.

The proof of what s/he said is out there.

Think about it.

[shaayecanaan]

164. Was it necessary to imply I'm a homophobe?

Seems certain people shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it.

And for fucks sake, quit that annoying tone of incredulity and the "REALLY?" nonsense. I presume you probably alerted on the post but got knocked back because the poster above started with the low-rent stuff first.

[Nevernose]

154. 2014

Mexico
Syria
Iraq
South Sudan
Somalia
Pakistan
Nigeria
Egypt
Egyptian Sudan
Libya
Central African Republic
Afghanistan
Gaza
Chechnya
Kashmir
India
Thailand
Philippines
Burma
Balochastan
Darfur
Yemen
Mali
The DRC
Algeria
Morocco

All of those are considered by the UN as large-scale conflicts, and all of those are in 2014. All of them except Mexico and Ukraine involve Muslims (and in most cases, what are clearly extremist Muslims). That doesn't mean that Islam is the problem, it means that Islam is the problem that needs to be worked on right now, and to do otherwise is disingenuous.

[JCMach1]

142. There is no Christian organization today that is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into

spreading their own radical brand of Christianity. The Saudis have been doing this for Islam for close to 40 yrs. The radicalism of today is the fruit of their labor.

No, not all Muslims are radical... However, that is the version of Islam that is ascendant due to Saudi money and influence. The Left forgets that at our own peril.

[Bluenorthwest]

148. Nope, no different than any other group that uses a religion as excuse to harm and pillage others

And because they are people just like you and me, criticism of their treatment of others should not be any different. Those who refuse to criticize wrongs are commanding those wrongs to continue.
I don't care what brand name religious trademark you put on homophobia and misogyny or upon the legalized discrimination against minority religious groups. If you do those things, those are things you are doing, a person, not some philosophy or set of superstitions. The people who do those things own their actions.

[moondust]

155. Purists/radicals/fanatics.

Sure, other religions have them, but as far as I know it is only Islamic purists/radicals/fanatics who are beheading and slaughtering innocent bystanders and seizing large areas of countries at gunpoint in the name of their religion. Is it because their underlying text tells them to do that while others don't? If it's in the holy book then it must be the only true way to salvation, right?

[shaayecanaan]

156. re

Sure, other religions have them, but as far as I know it is only Islamic purists/radicals/fanatics who are beheading and slaughtering innocent bystanders and seizing large areas of countries at gunpoint in the name of their religion.

Absolutely. You certainly wouldn't hear of Christians slaughtering innocent people or seizing large areas of countries in this day and age.

No sirree.

[moondust]

157. Holy wars and tribal conflicts?

Muslims are slaughtering other Muslims as well as anybody else they decide isn't pure/radical/fanatic enough for them. But you knew the difference, I'm sure...

[shaayecanaan]

159. Syntax and grammar?

I grow tired of trying to decipher posts here sometimes.

[moondust]

167. Off the top of your head,

in post #136, your first link is to the Srebrenica massacre. You seem to cite that as an example of Christians being just as bad as Muslims. Not to absolve all Christians, but the Wiki page you link to about the massacre does not contain the word "Christian" even once, so maybe one can conclude that it was not about Christians going on a killing spree at all. Maybe it was more of a tribal conflict or a political conflict or a land grab or something. Holy wars between religions are indeed as old as the hills; Srebrenica apparently wasn't one of them. And it certainly wasn't comparable to the grandiose, religion-based, cannibalistic genocide we are seeing with the ISIS strain of Islam. Nice try, though.

[shaayecanaan]

168. Yes, Srebrenica was really just a picnic in the park

it wasn't nearly as bad as anything ISIS have done



no, definitely not



and even if all the mass graves would tend to indicate otherwise



it really doesnt matter, because they were all dead Muslims anyway



and therefore not really important



and we all know that when Christians kill Muslims



they're not really killing *Muslims* per se



and they're certainly not killing them as Christians



No, the fact that the dead are all Muslims, and the killers all Christian



just happens to be some sort of bizarre coincidence.

[moondust]

169. Again no mention of Christians.

So where do you get this:

No, the fact that the dead are all Muslims, and the killers all Christian

when your article says this:

It was unclear whose bodies were in the grave, but they were believed to be Muslims and Croats killed by Bosnian serbs...

You're just demonizing Christians. Are you by any chance a Muslim with a persecution complex? Maybe swallowed too much ISIS propaganda?

The extended graphic imagery in your post is unnecessary and distasteful. It should be alerted on but I'll let somebody else do it if they so choose.

[shaayecanaan]

171. Yes, perhaps the Serbs were Buddhists or Zoroastrians

You're just demonizing Christians. Are you by any chance a Muslim with a persecution complex? Maybe swallowed too much ISIS propaganda?

Maybe you'd like to call me a sand-nigger as well, while you're at it?

FWIW, I am a Lebanese Maronite, that is to say a Lebanese Catholic. Give or take, we are the oldest Christian community on Earth.

My relatives in Lebanon are currently gearing to fight ISIS, should they ever make a move to try and take northern Lebanon, which is reasonably likely.

As far as Islamophobia is concerned, I just don't like bigots.

[Rhinodawg]

173. Correct me if I an wrong,

Doesn't Hezbollah have a history of violence against Lebanese Maronite ?

[shaayecanaan]

165. Bill Maher’s horrible excuse: Why his defense of Islamophobia just doesn’t make any sense

Compare this dismissal of Aslan’s polite frustration with the response to Ben Affleck’s visceral anger and disgust at Maher’s original statements. “It’s gross and racist” Affleck retorted, his annoyance evident. But unlike Aslan, who’s subaltern identity meant he required approval from the anchors in order for his arguments to be given credence, Affleck’s white privilege allowed him to express a similar sentiment to Aslan in far cruder and more assertive terms, yet without being dismissed.

I was reminded in watching the clip of a statement by the activist Audre Lorde: “Black and Third world people are expected to educate white people as to our humanity.” Discussions involving Muslims begin with the assumption that Muslims must prove their humanity to a hostile audience, the same premise which requires Muslims with no connection to ISIL or violent jihadis to begin a campaign like “Not In My Name” so they can avoid guilt by association.

The debate has been framed as a discussion over the nature of liberalism but that is, frankly, to give Maher’s bigotry far too much credence. Maher called Islam “the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing,” a statement which, when deconstructed, is a textbook illustration of bigotry.

For a start, religions don’t do or think anything – people articulate ideas or act in the name of religion; Affleck was spot-on when he queried whether Maher had somehow determined the “the codified doctrine of Islam.” And he was even more accurate when he lambasted Maher’s attempt to play on white victimhood by casting himself, a highly influential TV host, as part of an oppressed group whose voice was somehow being suppressed on issues relating to Islam and Muslims — all the while demonizing Islam and Muslims, largely unchallenged, on primetime Television.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/12/bill_mahers_horrible_excuse_why_his_defense_of_islamophobia_just_doesnt_make_any_sense/

[Rhinodawg]

170. Blah,Blah,Blah

" religions don’t do or think anything "... horses**t.

gee, who should we believe ...the dhimmi author or our own eyes?

[shaayecanaan]

172. And now the racists finally expose themselves...

Anyone who challenges Islamophobia is a "dhimmi author", eh? I guess it can't be long until someone starts raving about "Eurabia" or how Sharia law is going to take over the West.

[Rhinodawg]

174. A lot of people do believe that...

Violence in multiple countries.
Sweden , the rape capital of Europe .
Germany so bad finally Angela Merkel had to admit there is an incompatibility.
France with repetitive riots and endless anti-Semitic attacks.
UK with the recent Beheading.and history of 7/7 terror attacks.
Spain with it train bombings.

[Violet_Crumble]

175. Rhinodawg was on top of the Eurabia thing as soon as they arrived at DU..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5467590

And I see in their response to yr post, they trot out Sweden being the rape capital of Europe and blame it on Muslims. When I googled it, there were a whole lot of links to RW anti-immigration/anti-Muslim sites, but the only credlble news source of the lot not only didn't mention Muslims, but explained why the statistics are different there than in other European countries.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

I think anyone who calls anyone who speaks out against Islamophobia a 'dhimmi author', or blames Muslim immigration in Europe for things like Swedish rape stats is peddling anti-Muslim sentiment.

[shaayecanaan]

181. Thanks for the heads up

still, the pity is that probably the silent majority here agree with him

[Bonobo]

185. Again, "blood libel" is an actual thing, not a vague thing, a real actual thing.

You don't get to just appropriate it as you see fit.

Call it bigotry, whatever, but it s not blood libel in the same way that Bill Maher didn't write the Protocols of the Elders of Islam. Okay? Thanks.

[Behind the Aegis]

193. Yes, it is.

But it is used for a very specific purpose. What you need to understand is in today's world, everybody is a (new) Jew, except the Jews!

[shaayecanaan]

194. You made the exact same statement upthread...

and I already conceded the point. I suggest you take it up with the author.

[Bonobo]

195. I mistakenly thought this was a new OP. nt