Islam and the Mother Lode of Bad Ideas: In Defense of Sam Harris

[trotsky]

http://ivn.us/2014/10/16/islam-mother-lode-bad-ideas-defense-sam-harris/

In short, Harris is not a racist, nor is he stereotyping or painting all members of a religion with “a broad brush” (a trope we should be nudging toward retirement).

Kristof interjected and, somewhat dismissively, said that the divide we should be concerned with is not between the West and Islam, but the divide within Islam between fundamentalists and moderates.

While not wholly untrue, this latter distinction actually validates Harris’ entire criticism of Islam, the point of which is not that groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda are dangerous merely because they are violent, but because this violence is a logical consequence of beliefs in ideas that are clearly expressed in the Quran, the hadith (collections of the words and actions of the prophet Muhammad), and revered tafsir (commentaries by religious exegetes on these canonical texts).

In other words, Harris’ point is not that Islam is bad (or that all Muslims as people are bad) because some Muslims commit violence (that would be a fatuous, illogical conclusion), but because Islam, at its core, contains violent, divisive, intolerant, and otherwise bad ideas.

Are those bad ideas in the Quran, the hadith, and the tafsir, or are they not? If they are, then Harris is correct in his statements. If they are not, then Reza Aslan is correct and they are not Muslim ideas.

So? Are they or aren't they?

[PDJane]

1. Frankly, it's not the point.

There is not much said about homosexuality, for instance, one way or another, in the bible. There is one hell of a lot said about homsexuality by Christian clerics. Is that a Christian idea, or is it not?

To say that Islam is the motherlode of bad idea IS just bigotry, and it's incorrect. It is humanity that has all these bad ideas, and humanity that adheres to them!

[arcane1]

2. Is it bigotry to say that conservatism is the motherlode of bad ideas?

I've always felt that bigotry doesn't apply to ideas, beliefs, opinions, etc. Those things can be evaluated, reviewed, even revised. They aren't innate.

[PDJane]

3. Until you apply the bad ideas to a specific group of people, you are right.

When you decide, however, that the followers of Islam, or Judaism, or conservatives, or blacks or Chinese are the ones who have all the bad ideas in the world. Then, it is bigotry, because it becomes about a specific group of people.

[arcane1]

5. Fortunately, nobody is doing that.

[PDJane]

24. Funny, that's what it seemed like to me...

[skepticscott]

4. Um...no

Humanity doesn't hold the idea that people who convert from Islam to Christianity should be killed, or that people who draw Mohammed should be killed. Islam holds those ideas.

We get enough of the "everyone is equally bad" crap from the yacht clubbers here. We certainly don't need more of it.

[Starboard Tack]

14. We get enough of the "everyone is equally bad" crap from the yacht clubbers here

Maybe you would care to back that statement up with a link.

Have you added the seafaring community to your hate list? In your opinion, anyone who chooses to live on the water must be a Yacht Club member. I guess that makes us nasty 1%ers too, despite the fact that after 40 years of living on the water, I have never belonged to a yacht club, nor had any interest in joining one. Do you look for new targets to broad brush daily?

Atheists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, they are all people. Most are good, decent people, who don't judge others. And a few of each group are assholes. Period.
Now, try to twist that into something to feed the smear campaign.


Or, you could decide to behave like an adult and engage in civil conversation without the insults. I won't hold my breath on that one.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. If you don't belong to a yacht club then you needn't be concerned.

[Starboard Tack]

20. I point out bigotry when I see it.

Maybe you aren't concerned about bigotry. I think it should be exposed.
Or did you not think the comment was directed at me?

Remember the "birthers" Warren? Throw enough shit and some is bound to stick. Is that how you roll, Warren? Because for the poster you're supporting, it is a credo.

[skepticscott]

28. Ah, yes…that horrible campaign of bigotry against yacht club members

and other 1%ers. And you're out to put an end to that…how commendable! But you'd better get busy, dude. Lots to do, since hatred against the 1%ers is rampant on this site. You've got lots and lots of people to scold and upbraid all over DU, but I'm sure you're up to the task.

And btw, I love your lectures on "adult behavior". Kind of like Republican lectures on tolerance, since you seem to be into those kinds of comparisons, dude. I am SO taking notes!

[rug]

30. Neither do you.

[skepticscott]

23. Apparently, despite your claims to the contrary

You DO feel the need to challenge and discredit what I say. Not that it surprises me to find you being so disingenuous. Or to see you frothing at the mouth instead of answering the points I made.

But since, by your own admission, you don't own a yacht and don't belong to a yacht club, you're hardly being "smeared" here. Nor did my post contain any personal insults, despite your need to see them everywhere, apparently always directed at you.

[Starboard Tack]

25. Right! Your honesty is on a par with your tolerance.

So, what did you mean by this?

We get enough of the "everyone is equally bad" crap from the yacht clubbers here.

Who are you referring to? And what "crap" are you alluding to?

Go ahead! Keep digging!

[skepticscott]

27. The crap I'm referring to is the assinine notion

that all people and all ideologies have equal measures of good and bad in them. The jackass idea that "fundamentalist" atheists are just as bad as fundamentalist religionists. I'm sure you recognize those.

Still waiting for you to point to where the personal insult in my post was. A person of your "honesty" and "tolerance" should have no trouble with that, right?

[Dorian Gray]

32. As somebody

who moderately reads the board, it's obvious to me that you are sarcastically referring to the two people who live on a boat and are traveling (and the two whom you most often butt heads with). And since I don't participate here everyday.... if I can catch on to that, it should be obvious to everyone who posts here regularly.

[skepticscott]

35. You mean the two people who DON'T have a yacht?

And who struggle to live near the poverty line as they maintain their homes in Mexico and Italy along with their ocean-going vessel, according to what they've posted? Yes, they're quite well known here, and much loved and respected by all for their civility and tolerance of all who disagree with them. But they do NOT belong to a yacht club.

[Dorian Gray]

39. I don't care

who owns a yacht or who doesn't. I think that there is enough to debate (or vehemently argue... or slam... or snarkily dismiss) regarding ideas without going into personal attacks about lifestyle.

[skepticscott]

41. The issues of lifestyle were not introduced by me

And the issue of credibility is always relevant, wouldn't you say?

[Dorian Gray]

42. It's obvious

you don't like each other. I get that. (That's pretty much what I've taken away from the discussion at this point.)

[skepticscott]

55. At some point, I figured you might

actually have something of substance to say about the points I raised way back up in post 4. But I guess that was too much to expect of either you or Tack. If my comments on the ongoing irony and bankruptcy of certain people's posting behavior and agenda bothered you, oh well, but you don't really seem to be interested in taking anything away from the discussion.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Lay off Dorian Gray.

Please.

She doesn't want to get involved with our infighting and I don't blame her.

Maybe you don't know her well enough to understand she's nothing like ST so please take my word for it.

She has taken up for atheists many times, both in this forum and others.



eta: she has acknowledged your points in post #38.

[skepticscott]

58. Well, sorry, but apparently she does want to get involved

She injected herself into this sub-thread by responding to my post 27, even though it wasn't directed at her. And continues to participate. Fine and dandy...that's her business..but that's on her, not me.

[beam me up scottie]

59. Okay she did.

But she really is nothing like ST.

[Dorian Gray]

70. Thank you

BMUS. I appreciate you're standing up for me.

I honestly know these things get heated and I tend to stay out. Then sometimes I can't help but say something when I feel bugged. But I don't take any of it personally. We all get heated and stuff bugs us. Otherwise we wouldn't bother at all, right.


I enjoy reading and considering everything. And being challenged. Even if I don't respond all the time.

[beam me up scottie]

72. I miss your posts.

At least you still weigh in, I remember some of my friends from school were horrified when they were subjected to dinner at my house, what we considered spirited debates must have seemed like WWIII.

[Dorian Gray]

74. Hah

Spirited debates with friends can be fun a lot of fun. We've had those as well.

[Dorian Gray]

69. Dude

I've read the discussion with interest. The details of the "yachts" I've found really perplexing.

I think that Trotsky asked some great questions below. They got me thinking and questioning re: what I think on this topic. Whether humanity makes the religious rules or whether religons dictate... and what that means to be as a human and as a flawed and fluctuating believer.

Having and ax to grind is another thing. That tends to get people to clam up.

I'm saying that genuinely. Not because I'm trying to defend anybody. I'm truly as much an outsider here as you can be. Whether you want to listen or not is up to you.

[skepticscott]

71. You have been and still are free

to respond with substance to the points I made in post 4, and yet you don't seem to have any inclination to do so. You seem more interested in acting as a scold, something I don't take kindly to. Which is the reason for many of the things you express confusion about.

So what about it? Are you really interested in substantial discussion, or are you just grinding your own ax here?

[Dorian Gray]

76. I posted my thoughts

as you requested. I enjoy reading the substantive discussions and the tear their hair out arguments here. I still stand by what I said earlier, though. It's not a "scold" per se.

[rug]

31. Nope, you're not one to sling gratuitous insults.

Not that it surprises me to find you being so disingenuous. Or to see you frothing at the mouth instead of answering the points I made.

[skepticscott]

29. Yes, the Muslims who threaten to murder people

who leave the faith are assholes. The Muslims who threaten to murder people who draw their holy guy are assholes. Feel free to point to any atheists who are assholes like that.

And do enjoy your time on your teeny little boat, as you sail the Atlantic between your two homes to spend your summers in Italy. I'm sure everyone with a shack in Appalachia also has a summer home in Europe, right? Doesn't everyone living at the poverty line, as you claimed to be?

[Dorian Gray]

33. Don't you think that anybody who threatens to murder people...

for whatever reason... are more than assholes?

Seriously, I'd call someone an asshole for a lot less.

[skepticscott]

34. That's pretty much the point

One our friend doesn't seen to be willing to acknowledge.

[Dorian Gray]

38. Sorry,

I didn't realize the point you were making. But, yeah, it is pretty immoral that people who would murder someone (based upon any reason, including religious dogma). Groups like ISIS, groups that kill abortion providers, and even the ragtag Burmese Buddhists who preach annhilation of the local Muslims should be called on that dogma.

[Starboard Tack]

36. So, your bigotry is now directed at those who like the simple life?

What exactly is your objection to those of us who decide not to live in the land of the free, home of the brave? Is it because we are interested in other cultures, or is it because you think we are privileged? Or do you just resent the fact that we have figured out how to love and enjoy life beyond the confines of political, cultural and economic boundaries? What exactly do you find so loathsome about us and our lifestyle?
We do this for many reasons, which include being able to afford decent healthcare, enjoying our freedom, eating real food, meeting wonderful people wherever we go, inviting friends to share our discoveries and spend time with us, wherever we may be. And we accomplish all this on approximately $30,000 a year for two people. Sorry if it pisses you off that we figured out how to do that, but that is our reality. So, feel free to continue your smear campaign, but realize that you come across as a spiteful individual.
Hint: Try leaving out the personal slights and you might get more traction from your posts. Or didn't you notice that, apart from your followers, nobody around here wants to talk to you. That means all the good stuff that you could be saying might mean something. Lose the nasty edge and you might regain some credibility.

[Dorian Gray]

75. This is the post

I agree with you that humanity doesn't hold that idea. I would disagree with you that ISLAM holds those ideas, though I would vehemently agree that extremists do believe that.

It goes back to the discussion on the holy books. Sure there are passages that outright say things I disagree with. Modern interpretations (or more moderate/liberal religious) do ignore certain things. The books were written in a certain time, and those laws/passages are indicative of their time.

But, yes, I do see that problematic beliefs are interpreted by groups like Isis (or the Westboro Baptist Church) from available passages in their respective holy books. Despite that, I don't think you can tar an entire religion (especially when there are so many sects) because of the actions of extremists.

[skepticscott]

79. Sorry, but the argument that the bad people in religion are a teensy minority

who can be blithely dismissed by the convenient term "extremists" is old, tired and long discredited. 78% of Muslims in Afghanistan favor the death penalty for people who leave Islam or convert to another religion. 64% in Egypt and Pakistan. Over 50% in Malaysia. Those are not "extreme" positions in those countries. They are the norm. And those beliefs are held just as deeply and fervently (now as much as when the holy books were written), and are every bit as much a part of Islam as any of the warm fuzzy beliefs that you would like to characterize as "real" Islam. There is no justification for saying that Islam does not hold those ideas, unless you're going to deny that Islam holds any ideas, principles or tenets at all.

[Dorian Gray]

81. I never claimed anything is

"real" Islam. That was you. I am not comfortable defining an ideology that isn't mine. I'll let the adherents do that. I am also extraordinarily uncomfortable with the religious leadership in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. I answered your question in the last post. You state things here in a very definitive way... but isn't that taking "No True Scotsman" to the inverse? There are many strains of Islam. I am not a believer in Islam, and my knowledge is based upon a cursory reading of the Quaran in college and a very basic philosophy of Islam class back in college. (1989-1993) I do think that ISIS is able to recruit so readily says that there is a problem. People are disenfranchised. Is it Islam alone that leads people to join the ranks? It's a part of it but not the only ingredient. The world is complex, and I am incapable of seeing things as black and white as you put forth in the post I'm responding to.

[trotsky]

7. So logically you must also believe that the good ideas to be found in Islam...

are similarly humanity's good ideas?

[still_one]

26. Actually I had this discussion with someone else. The book of Leviticus in the Old Testament does

talk about it, and says it is a capital crime.

Islam is also clear in its prohibition of homosexual acts. The particular punishment depends on the country.

[CJCRANE]

6. The Abrahamic Religions all contain contradictory ideas.

As a result the number of interpretations is almost limitless.

Even the texts themselves say that they shouldn't always be interpreted literally. There are layers of interpretations from exoteric to esoteric. For example in Hebrew, as I understand it, each word and letter has hidden meanings or multiple meanings. And in Arabic the vowels are missing so there are other interpretations. There are multiple schools of thought.

Plus the idea of a literal interpretation is a modern innovation, a kind of dumbing down of traditions that span millennia.

The reality is that there is no "true" Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Just a myriad of interpretations. Some schisms grow stronger because they are more organized, or better funded or more violent but that doesn't mean they are the "real" form. For example, I find Gnostic Christianity just as valid as modern forms of Christianity.

However, systems of government should never be based on religion for this very reason. Hence, the secular idea of separation of church and state, allowing people to believe whatever they want to believe but not use it as the basis of law or discrimination.

[trotsky]

8. It can kind of be looked at both ways.

Yes, there is no "true" version of any of those religions.

But one can also say that all the versions are equally true.

[CJCRANE]

10. Yes. But that means there are multiple versions. No version is definitive.

[trotsky]

11. Which is itself interesting.

As many followers of particular versions (liberal, conservative, and everywhere in between) seem to insist that THEIR version is definitive.

[CJCRANE]

12. But that's why I think religion isn't intrinsically good or bad.

Because for every negative interpretation, there will be someone else with a positive interpretation. That's why I disagree with Sam Harris and Bill Maher on this.

However, that's also the reason why I would find it difficult to follow any one religion, because they all contain things I disagree with.

So I tend to cherry pick the the things I find useful from different religions.

[trotsky]

13. I think the part that makes it intrinsically problematic...

is that so many religions purport to be the divine word of a god or contain other information from the divine. Information that cannot be disputed by facts or reason. That's what is dangerous. And neither you, nor anyone else, can tell a believer in a "negative" interpretation that they are wrong.

[mr blur]

21. So why not just ignore the religions?

I mean, instead of trying to collect together what you consider the good bits from them? Is it that you can't rely on your own sense of what is right and what is wrong? I imagine not, so..?

[CJCRANE]

40. Where do you draw the line? Should I ignore what Muhammed Ali, Gandhi or MLK say

because I don't agree 100% with everything in their religions?

I rely on my own sense of right and wrong to judge what is valuable in various religions and philosophies. And those various religions and philosophies help to inform my own ideas.

[rug]

9. Actually, Kristof's remarks do invalidate Harris' critique.

The beheadings by ISIS do not flow any more logically from the Quran than do setting afire the daughters of priests who become prostitutes (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) or sparing a virgin rape victim from punishment if the rape occurs in a field (Deuteronomy 22:23-27).

There are reasons these things do not happen.

[edhopper]

15. A religion, as practiced by many people, from which harm is done,

deserves challenge and condemnation. But that is not to say the religion in it's entirety does.
We can criticize the Christianity or Islam or Judaism of some because of their beliefs while not saying that criticism applies to the whole religion.

We can challenge the basis of any religion in total? Is there anything divine in it's founder, are any of the stories from it's texts true? etc...

But that is not the same as looking at the behavior or beliefs of a segment of the followers.
At the same time, because those beliefs do not apply to everyone in that religion is not a reason to say the religion isn't part of the problem.

I don't know if Islam is full of more bad ideas than other religions, but i do think the way it is practiced and observed in large parts of the Muslim world is.

[trotsky]

16. Let's say a particular command appears in a religion's sacred text.

Like a command to kill apostates, for instance. (Or heck, a command to kill ANYONE.)

Should the religion be challenged for that?

[edhopper]

18. Absolutely

And there are equally bad ideas in all the other religions.
Just that less of their adherents follow them these days.

Is Harris saying Islam, like all religion, is the mother lode of bad ideas? Or Islam in particular is the mother lode? Worse than the others. It's pretty bad the way it's practiced in a lot of places. But so was Christianity a few hundred years ago. Maybe they need to go through an enlightenment.
Like I said their is criticism of the premiss of a religion and criticism the way some follow it.

And all ideas should be challenged, religion or otherwise.

[trotsky]

19. What if the command appeared in a religion's text...

but not a single adherent of the religion believed it or followed it? Is the idea still dangerous? Is the religion still dangerous?

I think Maher's "mother lode" comment was intended as hyperbole. It definitely got discussion happening! Islam absolutely has a ton of very bad ideas in his texts and teachings though.

Islam has certainly followed a strange trajectory. Christianity still has a ton of problems and bad ideas, but as you note, the last few centuries have seen it mellow out considerably. Islam started off centuries AHEAD of Christianity with its progressive ideas about women, science, etc. but has disturbingly regressed. If only we could get rid of this notion that religions are just "another way of knowing" about the universe - in particular the idea that there is such a thing as divine revelation - I think we could see some real progress.

[edhopper]

22. I agree with that.

If no one followed the idea, it is still bad, but probably not dangerous.
There are bad ideas in the texts from ancient Crete, I don't think they are dangerous anymore.

I guess I am saying we can blame and criticize Islam as those particular people observe it, but not say it is all Islam. (we can blame all of Islam for following a genocidal child rapist)

It's like condemning Catholicism and the Vatican for their brand of Christianity, we can't criticize the Unitarians for being homophobic.

[trotsky]

43. What if the idea isn't being followed...

but it's still contained in a book that people insist contains wisdom, information, or knowledge from a god?

[edhopper]

45. It's still a bad idea

but not dangerous. Though i suppose it has a chance to become dangerous if someone decides it's now an idea that should be followed.

Are you asking if a text contains bad ideas should we dismiss the whole thing?

I don't think we have to do that, since the very premiss of these texts are so flawed and rationally untrue that we can reject them.

Could you tell me what you are getting at here? We agree on most things and this is probably a different way of looking at them. I might be categorizing thing differently than you.

[trotsky]

50. "Are you asking if a text contains bad ideas should we dismiss the whole thing?"

No, I'm saying that if a text has any bad ideas at all we'd better not take any part of it seriously as the word of a god or gods.

[skepticscott]

53. At the very least, not the word of any god

that decent people should be worshipping and taking orders from.

[edhopper]

67. Well

we really shouldn't take any text seriously that claims it is the word of imaginary beings. (except as a cultural, archeological or literary work)

But there is also a real world problem of how we practically get religions and religious people to stop acting on bad ideas.

Getting them to stop believing is a monumental and maybe impossible task. So addressing those truly bad behaviors that are done in the name of God might be more doable.

[Starboard Tack]

37. Definitely one of your better posts. Very thoughtful

I like you when you think before you post. We could all learn from that.

[beam me up scottie]

44. I like you when you don't post at all.

Did you need a PhD in homophobia to compare support for gay marriage to one wanting to marry their hamster or bicycle?

[Starboard Tack]

46. The feeling is mutual.

Did you need a PhD in mendacity to twist what I said into what you wanted to hear. I'm sure Fox News would offer you a job in a heartbeat. You are in good company on the smear bandwagon. What's next in your little arsenal? Gonna sling at my family, or the boating community? You know we all love hamsters and bicycles.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Stop pretending you're a victim, you insulted trotsky for no reason.

I like you when you think before you post.

Nasty little passive aggressive comments like yours make DU suck.

You attacked him and I didn't let it go, get used to it.

[Starboard Tack]

48. You now mistake praise for insult. Is there nothing you don't twist to suit your agenda.

There is nothing passive aggressive about giving positive strokes for things well done. Sorry if that offends you. If I see a constructive, positive or intelligent post from you, I will acknowledge that also. Like some, I am not here to fight and personally attack fellow DUers.

It would be nice if you started thinking before you post, too.

[beam me up scottie]

49. And I was praising you when I said I like you when you don't post at all.

The smilies prove I'm sincere.

[Starboard Tack]

61. And I believe you

Unfortunately for you, I am not here for your approval or disapproval. Nor do I give a damn what you think about me. I don't know you and have hardly ever read any of your posts. If this is typical of the content of your posts, then it is no wonder. So, feel free to beam back to wherever you came from. I think dinner might be ready. Bye bye!

[Starboard Tack]

60. And I will continue to point out your twisting of the truth

and the smearing of fellow DUers. If you start to behave yourself, you will also get praise for any positive posts you make.
Meanwhile, as long as you continue with your smear campaign, get used to being called on it.

[beam me up scottie]

62. i don't want praise.

I want cookies.

I was told there'd be cookies.

Where are the cookies?

If you start to behave yourself, you will also get praise for any positive posts you make.

I get all the praise I need from people who matter.





"praise"

[Starboard Tack]

63. Unfortunately, we don't usually get to choose the form any praise we deserve might take.

Let's see how much praise you get for this hilarity http://www.democraticunderground.com/123029902#post6

With humor like that you could get your own TV show, when you're not writing news pieces for Fox.

You might also want to read the OP in that thread. It's about people who try to silence and marginalize others. Pretty funny that it should be posted in the group that excels at silencing and marginalizing those atheists who do not march in lockstep with intolerance and bigotry toward people of faith.
Of course, you are not like that, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218157666#post44

Oh, the hypocrisy!

[beam me up scottie]

64. Unlike you I don't play the victim card.

I give as good as I get and I sleep very well at night.

If this is too hard on you maybe you should take a break.

[skepticscott]

65. But you got the

Excellent and Thoughtful Post® Award! From the only two people here who are presumptuous enough to give it out.

I am SO jealous…I thought I was going to get it this month…I prayed on my beloved St. Christopher SO hard!

[beam me up scottie]

66. Oh, stop, you know we're just doing this for the cash incentives.

Lousy trotsky's got us all beat this month...

Seriously, wtf is that all about?

Who posts on DU because they want praise?

[skepticscott]

68. Nahhhh...I want the book deal

Maybe I can get one of those blurby thingies from Tack on my dust jacket.

[Starboard Tack]

73. Except you give nothing

Dangle in the breeze for a while. You never know, you might learn something. I'm about done with you for now. You have lots to think about. Sleep well.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. but what if the literal command to kill apostates is just a metaphor

for "god loves everyone"? Why do you hate all believers?

[trotsky]

57. And puppies! I hate puppies too!

[samsingh]

51. they are expressed in those

[samsingh]

52. he provides a good explanation based on fact

it is the ideology that causes many people in that religion to perpetuate the violence, support it, condone it and rarely criticize it.

[Prophet 451]

77. One could say the same of the Bible

Given the chance, Phil Robertson would be burning heretics at the stake. Pretending that Islam is uniquely horrible is simply cultural snobbery.

[skepticscott]

78. Last time I checked

there were no Christian groups who advocated death for people who leave their particular faith, either openly or by implication. They'd do lots of other evil shit if they could get away with it, but Islam seems to have that particular piece of religious joy cornered.

[Prophet 451]

80. Only because they can't get away with it

and I'm pretty sure that if I could be bothered with Googling it, I'd be able to find groups saying exactly that. It's exactly what Christianity has done when they've had enough power to make it stick. Now that they have to play nice with secular government, they pretend to not believe this shit (and many Christians are nice people who genuinely don't believe in that) but it's still there, just waiting for a chance to rear it's head.

[Act_of_Reparation]

82. Scott's point, I think, is that death-for-apostasy is codified in scripture.

The Bible makes no prescriptions as to how apostasy should be treated. Traditionally, anyone who did anything against the church was excommunicated. While this was assuredly not a pleasant fate for those thus sentenced, one could nevertheless take solace in the fact their head remained squarely upon their shoulders.

The Qur'an, however, is very specific regarding how one who leaves the faith is to be treated. If we're talking about "religion" as an ideal exemplified in its foundational texts (rather than religion in practice), then one could argue Islam is objectively "worse" in this regard.

[Prophet 451]

83. Hang on a minute

Firstly, that's flat wrong. The Bible does command the death penalty for apostasy. See Deuteronomy 13:6-9; Deuteronomy 17:3-5 and 2 Chronicles 15:13. One could also mention Romans 1:20-32.

Secondly, I would argue that this is in the nature of a retroactive justification i.e. that it's something formulated to provide a pretext for a previously held prejudice. Scott is of the view that Islam is worse because, well, it just is.

Thirdly, you start out taking about "traditionally" before switching to talking about religion "as an ideal", switching between the two to condemn Islam.

[Act_of_Reparation]

84. Nope.

See Deuteronomy 13:6-9; Deuteronomy 17:3-5 and 2 Chronicles 15:13

If you hold that the Pauline Epistles are canon, then Christians are exempt from Mosaic Law.

Romans 1:20-32

This passage says everyone believes in God "in their hearts". Nowhere, however, does Paul tell Christians what they should do with people who say they don't believe.

Compare that to excerpts from the Hadith:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Sahih al-Bukhari 9:83:17

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'

Sahih al-Bukhari 4:52:260

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.

Sahih al-Bukhari 9:89:271

Rather specific, yes?

Secondly, I would argue that this is in the nature of a retroactive justification i.e. that it's something formulated to provide a pretext for a previously held prejudice. Scott is of the view that Islam is worse because, well, it just is.

Except:

1) I've just demonstrated how one could qualify such an argument;

2) You're not omniscient; and

3) Sticking to the content of Scott's arguments instead of his character (or rather, what you suspect is his character) would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

Thirdly, you start out taking about "traditionally" before switching to talking about religion "as an ideal", switching between the two to condemn Islam.

Unintelligible nonsense.

Because there is no Biblical treatment for apostasy, one must cite tradition if one is to describe how apostates have been historically treated by Christians. Because apostasy is treated specifically by Islamic canon, we can talk about what how the religion's founders envisioned its ideal practice. Is that so difficult to understand?

[Prophet 451]

85. Right

Because there is no Biblical treatment for apostasy

Except there bloody well is! I listed the verses. Saying they don't count is just clinging to excuses (especially when history shows that they have been applied). If Christians get to ignore the nastier verses, so do Muslims. You're insisting on a literalistic interpretation of the Qu'ran but refusing the same interpretation of the Bible. So you're on the "Islam is worse because, it just is" and I have no more time for you.

[Act_of_Reparation]

86. No, you didn't

Except there bloody well is! I listed the verses. Saying they don't count is just clinging to excuses (especially when history shows that they have been applied).

I'm not saying they don't count. Paul the Epistle did, in books of the New Testament that are considered canon by every mainstream Christian denomination I can think of.

Whether or not what Paul wrote makes sense in the grander scheme of things isn't my problem. The simple fact of the matter is his argument is codified in scripture.

If Christians get to ignore the nastier verses, so do Muslims.

Yes, that's right. But I'm not talking about Muslims, or what these Muslims believe. I'm talking about the content of the scripture, and that's all.

You're insisting on a literalistic interpretation of the Qu'ran but refusing the same interpretation of the Bible. So you're on the "Islam is worse because, it just is" and I have no more time for you.

Good. Be on your illiterate way.