Ben Affleck, Bill Maher and "Islamaphobia"

[Kaworu 17]

God Emperor Baldur

He was branded a heretic because he believed that the universe was not limited to what we as humans could see. Bruno was a Christian friar and scholar working for the vatican. He was later fired for reading banned material.

Let me clear that while he was a "Copernican", he only adopted the idea because it fit into his hermetic cosmology, he was NOT a scientist. He publicly disputed Mary's virginity, he wrote that Christ was not the Son of God, but "an unusually skilled magician." He got burned because he a heretic magician, hermetist and occultist.

And because he had no prudence to hide his heresy. He constantly ranted about how idiotic his fellow friars were, calling them asses and lamenting their adherence to Catholic doctrine.

For years, he'd set up shop in some city, find new patrons, and promptly make enemies of them with his combative sarcasm and relentless arguments. Even fellow Copernican pioneers Galileo and Kepler had no love for Bruno. In fact, in light of his difficult personality, it's kind of a mystery that he survived as long as he did.

[SparkyKid3000]

N3bu

SparkyKid3000

N3bu

SparkyKid3000

N3bu

I'm sorry, did you mean to say terrorists?

Or are just going to imply that any one who is a Muslim takes questionable actions?

The people I'm talking about are terrorists and the politically active who seek to make Muslim beliefs a part of the law. They are the dangerous ones. But of course this doesn't just apply to Muslims. Any individual who uses their faith in such a way is part of the problem. I have nothing against the others.

But you did say the actions of Muslims.

Yes because that's who we're discussing right? What exactly are you trying to get at?

That your implying that all Muslims are the problem.

You said Liberals who defend the actions of Muslims, not fundamentalists or terrorists, this leads the implication that a Muslim, any Muslim regardless of context, have actions that must be defended because they're bad people, because they're Muslim.

Well let's look at the end of my first post that you didn't include when you quoted me.

Quote:

To the secular Muslims I'll say this: if you don't make enough effort to separate yourselves from the fanatics then you are doomed to be lumped into the same category as them. Do everything you can whether it's publicly speaking out or having the conversation within the Muslim community. Don't just sit on your hands and allow others to define who you are.

I know not all Muslims are bad. All the Muslims I know personally are wonderful people. They also agree with me on many points concerning this issue. Still, I guess I overestimated how much context I was giving so I could have worded my response better.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

God Emperor Baldur

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

So you concede it. Thank you for your honesty.

More like it seems you do not want to admit that religion causes stupidity. How sad.

So do you finally have a study actually supporting your stated position? If not, then I will continue to assume all following posts are concessions from you.

A thesis doesn't need to be 20 pages long. Especially when direct action from religion hampered educational progress.

Thank you for conceding.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Mister George Kapland

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

So you concede it. Thank you for your honesty.

More like it seems you do not want to admit that religion causes stupidity. How sad.

So do you finally have a study actually supporting your stated position? If not, then I will continue to assume all following posts are concessions from you.

a recent review of 63 studies showed that there is a moderate negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity (Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013). The review found that religious beliefs, such as belief in God, are somewhat more strongly related to lower intelligence than religious behavior, such as church attendance. The authors estimated that the average difference in IQ points between believers and nonbelievers ranged from 6.2 for non-college samples to 7.8 for college samples. This difference is roughly half a standard deviation in size, so this represents a reasonably substantial effect rather than something trivial.




Have a good day.

Not a causation study, which is what the poster argued (i.e. that religion causes stupidity).

Thank you for the well-wishes. I sincerely hope you have a good day too.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

trajik007

I tried to search through the comments for this, but didn't see it. I could be wrong, but this is highly relevant. You don't have to read the full letter, just the first 24 bullet points.

Muslim Scholars Write Open Letter Denouncing and Condemning ISIS, Stating That ISIS Defies Islamic Law.

Edit: For those who don't want to click anything, here are the points:



1

Executive Summary
1-It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an— or part of a verse — to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith
2-It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3-It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4-It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5-It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6-It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7-It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8-Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9-It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10-It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat— in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11-It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12-The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13-It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14-It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15-It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16-It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17-It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18-It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19-It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God
20-It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21-Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22- It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23- Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24- After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

Pssh, this is Gaia. We, like most of the talking heads, can't be bothered by relevant information. As the old saying goes, "Never let facts get in the way of a good story."

In all seriousness, The information you posted is very relevant, but relevant information is not always "relevant" when you are dealing with someone who has their larger world view at stake.

When someone is discussing a topic in a disinterested manner or is open to new information, relevant information can be introduced. However, when someone is interested in a topic and their position reflects their larger world view, its harder to make the case that the information is "relevant".

People are not quick to give up their world views, but will change positions.

[God Emperor Baldur]

Riviera de la Mancha

Mister George Kapland

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

So you concede it. Thank you for your honesty.

More like it seems you do not want to admit that religion causes stupidity. How sad.

So do you finally have a study actually supporting your stated position? If not, then I will continue to assume all following posts are concessions from you.

a recent review of 63 studies showed that there is a moderate negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity (Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013). The review found that religious beliefs, such as belief in God, are somewhat more strongly related to lower intelligence than religious behavior, such as church attendance. The authors estimated that the average difference in IQ points between believers and nonbelievers ranged from 6.2 for non-college samples to 7.8 for college samples. This difference is roughly half a standard deviation in size, so this represents a reasonably substantial effect rather than something trivial.




Have a good day.

Not a causation study, which is what the poster argued (i.e. that religion causes stupidity).

Thank you for the well-wishes. I sincerely hope you have a good day too.

I am not arguing correlation, I am arguing direct causation. Correlation would be saying that the number of ebola patients skyrocketed as more states legalized gay marriage.

[God Emperor Baldur]

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

So you concede it. Thank you for your honesty.

More like it seems you do not want to admit that religion causes stupidity. How sad.

So do you finally have a study actually supporting your stated position? If not, then I will continue to assume all following posts are concessions from you.

A thesis doesn't need to be 20 pages long. Especially when direct action from religion hampered educational progress.

Thank you for conceding.

Saying you won and posting a picture of Gene Wilder does not make you a winner.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

God Emperor Baldur

Riviera de la Mancha

Mister George Kapland

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

More like it seems you do not want to admit that religion causes stupidity. How sad.

So do you finally have a study actually supporting your stated position? If not, then I will continue to assume all following posts are concessions from you.

a recent review of 63 studies showed that there is a moderate negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity (Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013). The review found that religious beliefs, such as belief in God, are somewhat more strongly related to lower intelligence than religious behavior, such as church attendance. The authors estimated that the average difference in IQ points between believers and nonbelievers ranged from 6.2 for non-college samples to 7.8 for college samples. This difference is roughly half a standard deviation in size, so this represents a reasonably substantial effect rather than something trivial.




Have a good day.

Not a causation study, which is what the poster argued (i.e. that religion causes stupidity).

Thank you for the well-wishes. I sincerely hope you have a good day too.

I am not arguing correlation, I am arguing direct causation. Correlation would be saying that the number of ebola patients skyrocketed as more states legalized gay marriage.

Exactly.

The problem it that you have not carried your burden. That, and, based on your example, you may not know what "correlation" and "causation" means.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

God Emperor Baldur

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

More like it seems you do not want to admit that religion causes stupidity. How sad.

So do you finally have a study actually supporting your stated position? If not, then I will continue to assume all following posts are concessions from you.

A thesis doesn't need to be 20 pages long. Especially when direct action from religion hampered educational progress.

Thank you for conceding.

Saying you won and posting a picture of Gene Wilder does not make you a winner.

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Suicidesoldier#1

Plata Plomo y Sangre

Suicidesoldier#1

Plata Plomo y Sangre

Suicidesoldier#1

There's lots of metaphorical interpretations and simply put different interpretations and translations.

The religion itself doesn't condone violence for no reason just because Jesus had a sword, and the case about the Quran is that, it never says to kill the Apostate in the Quran. So that's just stupid ramblings.

You say they say it's perfect or meant to be taken the way you say it is, when they tell you, to your face, the opposite.

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

I can cite you the Hadith as well if you'd like.

As I know you're a troll, I'm not going to get too wound up in proving your stupid arguments wrong, but I will warn you I'll eventually boot you if you continue the intellectual dishonesty because I'd rather not have the thread cluttered up by nonsense.

The problem with the quote is that it's taken out of context. It's not about killing non-Muslims, it's about killing people who make you stray from morality or who do. Like all religions, the written texts have been translated in many languages and lines of text can be taken out of a book and given the implication of having another meaning without any other support to them.

An easier to understand quote is here "They would love to see you deny the truth even as they have denied it, so that you should be like them. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies until they forsake the domain of evil for the sake of God; and if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever you may find them. And do not take any of them for your ally or giver of succour,"


The "way of God" is meant to be morality, equal is meant to be equal to them being evil, and so on.

Many of the lines are vague and tell a story more so than actually give some kind of codified law. Many phrases can be intended to mean many things.

We can take the phrase "though shall not kill" for instance. Does this mean never kill? Never in self defense, never kill an animal or hunt, never kill a plant? Does that mean you can't kill food, doesn't that mean you're killing yourself by not eating, so how do you avoid it? Kill a car, an electronic device? The reality is, it's more appropriately translated as "though shall not murder", I.E. though shall not kill unjustifiably. The rest of the bible explains different scenarios and when it's okay and when it's not okay to kill and so on, but different translations use different words, and you will find some iterations that say "though shall not kill". The meaning, the intent, if you read the rest of it, is to imply unjustified killing is wrong, and it goes in and explains what that is. When you have a statement that is somewhat vague and ambiguous, it can be easy to make up your own implications, but if you read the rest of the book, it more clearly defines the details.

It's about killing apostates. It says it directly. Turning their back on the faith. The mental gymnastics you attempt don't change that.

Thou shalt not kill is left vague; kill someone if they turn their back on their faith is not vague. You have no argument. So would you like to concede now that you were incorrect and that the Qur'an does indeed state that one is to kill apostates?

Also, from the Hadiths:

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

The Quran does not say to do that, it's an improper translation. The hadith is a collection articles that never made it into the Quran, and there are discrepancies among Muslims on what part of it is to be followed or is even relevant, and not all Muslims believe all articles attributed to the hadith are accurate. There's dozens of articles attributed to the hadith that no major Muslim religion follows, because they're external scripture, words not inside the Quran.

A lot of that is simply a result of poor translations. It's more accurate to say someone who has turned their back on morality, and to do away with them, not necessarily to kill. It never specifically mentions apostates, that is your inference.

And you're basing that conjecture on .. your knowledge of classical Arabic? Despite the fact that many people who ACTUALLY speak Arabic translated it this way, and that many in the Islamic world indeed cite this when they declare in polls that the penalty for apostasy should be death.

Um, no. The Hadiths were reports of what the prophet said. In no way were they "articles that didn't make them into the Qu'ran". You're puling that out of your a**. Furthermore, while there are various Hadiths that are rejected and accepted by sects of Islam, the Bhukari is one of the most widely accepted, almost universally amongst Sunni Muslims.

No, it isn't an inference; the definition of an apostate is one who renounces a religion or faith. That's what the word means. Again, I'm aware of your status as a troll in the ED, but I'm not going to continue to entertain idiotic statements made by you in advancement of your trolling. This is the second time I'm warning you to stop making completely intellectually bankrupt statements that anyone with a brain can falsify, before I boot you from the thread.

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Riviera de la Mancha

trajik007

I tried to search through the comments for this, but didn't see it. I could be wrong, but this is highly relevant. You don't have to read the full letter, just the first 24 bullet points.

Muslim Scholars Write Open Letter Denouncing and Condemning ISIS, Stating That ISIS Defies Islamic Law.

Edit: For those who don't want to click anything, here are the points:



1

Executive Summary
1-It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an— or part of a verse — to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith
2-It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3-It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4-It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5-It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6-It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7-It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8-Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9-It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10-It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat— in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11-It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12-The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13-It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14-It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15-It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16-It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17-It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18-It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19-It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God
20-It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21-Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22- It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23- Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24- After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

Pssh, this is Gaia. We, like most of the talking heads, can't be bothered by relevant information. As the old saying goes, "Never let facts get in the way of a good story."

In all seriousness, The information you posted is very relevant, but relevant information is not always "relevant" when you are dealing with someone who has their larger world view at stake.

When someone is discussing a topic in a disinterested manner or is open to new information, relevant information can be introduced. However, when someone is interested in a topic and their position reflects their larger world view, its harder to make the case that the information is "relevant".

People are not quick to give up their world views, but will change positions.

This is ironic flag planting on your part, considering any amount of information to contradict your statements seemed to be ignored in this thread.

This does not refute my claims in any way; I never denied that some millions of Muslims do not read the Qur'an literally or believe that violence is their right in defense of the faith. I stated that read literally, the Abrahamic religions are violent, and that MANY MILLIONS of muslims read their qur'an literally and want to kill infidels and spread the faith through the sword.

What we've got here is a massive scare-crow from you.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Plata Plomo y Sangre

Riviera de la Mancha

trajik007

I tried to search through the comments for this, but didn't see it. I could be wrong, but this is highly relevant. You don't have to read the full letter, just the first 24 bullet points.

Muslim Scholars Write Open Letter Denouncing and Condemning ISIS, Stating That ISIS Defies Islamic Law.

Edit: For those who don't want to click anything, here are the points:



1

Executive Summary
1-It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an— or part of a verse — to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith
2-It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3-It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4-It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5-It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6-It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7-It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8-Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9-It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10-It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat— in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11-It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12-The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13-It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14-It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15-It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16-It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17-It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18-It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19-It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God
20-It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21-Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22- It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23- Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24- After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

Pssh, this is Gaia. We, like most of the talking heads, can't be bothered by relevant information. As the old saying goes, "Never let facts get in the way of a good story."

In all seriousness, The information you posted is very relevant, but relevant information is not always "relevant" when you are dealing with someone who has their larger world view at stake.

When someone is discussing a topic in a disinterested manner or is open to new information, relevant information can be introduced. However, when someone is interested in a topic and their position reflects their larger world view, its harder to make the case that the information is "relevant".

People are not quick to give up their world views, but will change positions.

This is ironic flag planting on your part, considering any amount of information to contradict your statements seemed to be ignored in this thread.

This does not refute my claims in any way; I never denied that some millions of Muslims do not read the Qur'an literally or believe that violence is their right in defense of the faith. I stated that read literally, the Abrahamic religions are violent, and that MANY MILLIONS of muslims read their qur'an literally and want to kill infidels and spread the faith through the sword.

What we've got here is a massive scare-crow from you.

Hey bro, I have seen next to no information presented in comments to me, and what has been presented has not been on point to any of my points. If someone has some, I genuinely would like to see it, seriously.

I am not really addressing your comments since I have not been following them really. My comments are more to just the OP and to others I have been posting with.

Since you brought it up though, literally reading any religious text when the people you are critiquing largely makes no sense. While your point about many millions reading it literally is well-taken, what you are not addressing is that even under the most generous figures from your video, about 1 in 5 Muslims actually hold the views you take issue with. Further, if you read the link provided from the other poster, its giving the asserted "strict" reading you are talking about. Its basically saying that most of the interpretations you, Maher, and his guest take issue with are sort of their own thing.

So I'd say if we are going to get into the business of characterizing positions, I'd say yours is the most scarecrow-esque. It uses tactics like highlighting "MANY MILLIONS" but does not put those numbers in context. It talks about a "strict" reading, but it does not, at least in this response, address information that details the "Strict" reading.

Don't know what to say man other than that I call it like I see it. Prove me wrong if you don't agree.

[trajik007]

trajik007

I tried to search through the comments for this, but didn't see it. I could be wrong, but this is highly relevant. You don't have to read the full letter, just the first 24 bullet points.

Muslim Scholars Write Open Letter Denouncing and Condemning ISIS, Stating That ISIS Defies Islamic Law.

Edit: For those who don't want to click anything, here are the points:



1

Executive Summary
1-It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an— or part of a verse — to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith
2-It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3-It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4-It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5-It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6-It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7-It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8-Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9-It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10-It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat— in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11-It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12-The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13-It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14-It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15-It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16-It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17-It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18-It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19-It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God
20-It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21-Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22- It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23- Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24- After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

Honestly, if no one else is willing to look at this, very relevant, point on the matter, than this is a juvenile discussion and argument, not a debate. If people can't take the relevant, known, facts into account, then they do not understand learning through debate. They argue to make other people agree with them. And that is the lowest form of "debate" possible.

[Kaz E Fresh]

Plata Plomo y Sangre

Recently, on an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, actor/director Ben Affleck was a guest on the show as well as Sam Harris. Ultimately, the topic of discussion turned to radical Islam, the position of western liberals and their unwillingness to criticize Islam, and finally with Affleck taking offense and calling both Maher and Harris' positions "racist".



Seems to me that both sides represent the actual larger dialogue within liberalism and I hate to skirt anywhere near the annoying conservative dicksucks that bemoan the "PC nation", but in this case I side with Harris.

The fact that any criticism of Islam is seen as "racism" or "islamaphobia" by the left is intellectually dishonest and ridiculous, to paraphrase Harris. I've not heard one cogent argument against the idea that the Abrahamic religions are peaceful; they aren't. All three are vile, repugnant and violent and the religious moderates who follow them need to start admitting it and condemning these parts of their own religion, rather than unwittingly providing cover for the extremists and fundamentalists by stating it's individuals rather than their religion itself.

While there's no doubt Islam is currently the most dangerous, it's arguable that Christianity has historically been much more destructive, even as recently as a century or so ago. There's certainly no doubt that in the U.S specifically, Christianity is the most destructive religion, albeit this is a less of a violent movement and more of an insidious theocratic phenomenon. The only reason Judiasm is not more of a concern in my eyes is their sheer lack of numbers, but a fundamentalist Jew is just as dangerous as a fundamentalist Muslim or Christian.

Discussion: video
"Islamaphobia" and the sanctity of religious views to be above criticism
My fellow liberals' failure in this area

The issue with people discussing this video is some of you (I don't know about you particularly, OP) are not well-educated on Sam Harris' background. Because of his background, it's hard for me to believe he intends well in his statements. I am a Muslim who can stand for the criticism of Islam, that's fine with me. Hell, I own a copy of The Satanic Verses and do think Rushdie did a good job with the book, but Harris is also the same person who said they should profile anyone who is a Muslim, or looks/act/could be Muslim. This is the tipping point for logical discussion about problems in the Islamic world, because now you're just being a racist. The majority of the Islamic population are either black or brown, so you've got a big problem there.

In regards to Bill Maher, his mafia comment.. come on. There is criticism and then there is straight alienation of the Muslim population and that's what statements like that will get you only. Maher also claims that Islam is uniquely violent and/or possess unique violent qualities. This is obviously not true, as you have said in your OP and as anyone with a decent knowledge of religions, Christianity has quite the backlog of genocides in the past. So how could you make that statement knowing that? How could you make that statement knowing that the IDF also backs their war crimes through Judaism jurisprudence? How could you make that statement knowing that the Bush administration (Tony Blair, et al) justified the Iraq war with the use of Bible scripture? Why are these acts of violence not being examined as carefully as the actions of ISIS? Again, this is where I start to believe that the pair (Maher & Harris) are racist. I have no other logical explanation. It's fine to criticize my religion, or any other religion, but when you criticize Islam exclusively and pretend it's uniquely bad while other acts of terrorism are being conducted simultaneously.. nope. You clearly are not serious about approaching this with the genuine intention to learn & seek knowledge.

[Kitty Nocturna]

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

Riviera de la Mancha

God Emperor Baldur

Really?



Correlation works with causation, especially when they use religion to go against an already stated fact.


I have HBO, I already know Bill Maher's position.

*Yawn* Still waiting on your evidence. Remember, causation study now, not correlation, as per your position.

The topic of the thread is the video in the link and the OP's position. Read with attention.

I already gave you evidence. You are no better than a creationist with his ears plugged.

You gave no evidence. You gave a picture with some billboard. You did not post a causation study indicating, as per your argument, that religion or religious belief causes stupidity.

Darwin is rolling over in his grave if you think that is a proof for your argument.

Or in other words, you are in denial.

There are many instances where religion caused problems. The execution of Bruno because he said the universe was infinite? How about the Vatican who destroyed Greek culture and their knowledge? What about al Ghazali? He ended a golden age in the Middle East just by saying that math is the work of the devil.

There is no "other words" than the words I already typed to you. You have no proof or evidence to speak of that religion or religious belief causes stupidity. The only person here in denial is you. Just come to grips with the simple fact that you made a terrible argument, you have no evidence for your position, and you should have conceded it long ago. Holding on to you it just makes you look more and more dense with each passing response from me.

*Sign* When did I ever say that religion has not caused problems? Are you ever going to not try for a red herring? Now again, let me remind you of your position: Religion causes stupidity. Prove it. Or, concede it.

You're trying to strike an intelligent debate with the same guy who, when responding to my statement that rape and rape jokes aren't funny, called me the antithesis of comedy and and said apathy is better than caring, which is causes violence. Then he compared me to people killing for religion or something. Ignored my statement that apathy without discretion is what causes the sociopaths who kill people and that being apathetic without any amount of empathy makes for an unhealthy mindset, then ignored all points brought up by others and dropped the conversation. He ignores anything you say and jumps to conclusions. I've only ever seen him drop from a discussion completely after his words are picked apart rather than grow a pair.