jsteele wrote:
It it almost surreal that an apparently intelligent person would not only announce his opposition to an entire religion, but go to such lengths to justify it. Sad that today's intellectual environment actually allows for such a thing. I imagine that smart and sophisticated people once sat around saying similar things about Jews and Catholics.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My problem with Islam is that it supports Sharia law, giving fertile ground for people that want to impose it, by force if necessary. There is no version of Sharia law that is in any way compatible with liberal western values. Take a hard look at this, particularly the "making sharia the official law of the land" question:

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

A large majority of Muslims world wide support making Sharia law the "law of the land". That thought should terrify every liberal. What could possibly motivate something like a billion people to support such a reactionary goal? Religion, in this case Islam.

Thank you for being clear in this matter. You are knowingly anti-Muslim and, apparently, proud of it. I personally find that sort of thinking narrow-minded and not worthy of intelligent people. But, given that your position is clear, I probably can't change your opinion.

Yes, unlike you I am far too "narrow minded" to be an apologist for a belief system that commands such things as lashing for fornication of any sort, and amputating hands for theft. You are completely correct in this.

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

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My problem with Islam is that it supports Sharia law, giving fertile ground for people that want to impose it, by force if necessary. There is no version of Sharia law that is in any way compatible with liberal western values. Take a hard look at this, particularly the "making sharia the official law of the land" question:

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

A large majority of Muslims world wide support making Sharia law the "law of the land". That thought should terrify every liberal. What could possibly motivate something like a billion people to support such a reactionary goal? Religion, in this case Islam.

Thank you for being clear in this matter. You are knowingly anti-Muslim and, apparently, proud of it. I personally find that sort of thinking narrow-minded and not worthy of intelligent people. But, given that your position is clear, I probably can't change your opinion.

Anonymous wrote:
My problem with Islam is that it supports Sharia law, giving fertile ground for people that want to impose it, by force if necessary. There is no version of Sharia law that is in any way compatible with liberal western values. Take a hard look at this, particularly the "making sharia the official law of the land" question:

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

A large majority of Muslims world wide support making Sharia law the "law of the land". That thought should terrify every liberal. What could possibly motivate something like a billion people to support such a reactionary goal? Religion, in this case Islam.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are eight recognized different schools of thought regarding. They are all highly illiberal, drawing as they do from highly illiberal source material.

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

The only one lacking understanding is you. I highly suggest you read the Koran and the Hadiths. I also suggest you also read Qutb and the statements from IS's leader and chief spokesman as I have. Perhaps you will learn something. Perhaps you will remain so wedded to your cultural relativism you will remain blind.

Originally you said, "The question that should be asked of Muslims is whether they support Sharia law." There is not a single agreed-upon "Sharia law".

So, as a result, two people could both answer affirmatively while actually supporting much different things. The Sharia law found in Indonesia, for instance, is much different from that found in Afghanistan.

Gay in Indonesia's Aceh? Brace for 100 Lashes in Front of a Crowd wrote:In 2001, the Indonesian government granted Shariah law to Aceh in hopes of winning over Islamists who were otherwise sympathetic to the rebellion. After the guerrillas negotiated for peace in 2005, they transformed into politicians and retained the popular Islamic laws.

Indonesia’s human rights advocates are deeply horrified at the harsh codes against homosexuality. It’s “as if we’re going back hundreds of years,” according to Chika Noya, an Indonesian gay rights activist interviewed by the Jakarta Globe. Another activist insisted the punishment belongs in the Middle Ages.

“Gays and lesbians are human beings also,” said a female Indonesian lecturer from Aceh in an interview with GlobalPost. “Who are we to go against God’s creations?”

But she conceded that “those who are against it are the minority.” Hardliners have become so emboldened in Aceh, she said, that publishing her name, employer and pro-gay stance could bring on serious repercussions.

“It is hard for people like me in this community to say openly that we’re against it,” the lecturer said. “Because people will say we’re against what the holy book and God says ... and that means, in their interpretation, they can kill us.”

But, now you have gone a step further. Now you suggest that I "read the Koran and the Hadiths". I have read the Quran and have both English and Arabic versions on a shelf in front of me. I no longer have sufficient Arabic to read the version in that language, though I once did. However, your point now, apparently, is that the problem is not actually "Sharia law", but the "Koran and the Hadiths". So, your issue is not with Sharia law, but Islam itself.

Anonymous wrote:

There are eight recognized different schools of thought regarding. They are all highly illiberal, drawing as they do from highly illiberal source material.

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

The only one lacking understanding is you. I highly suggest you read the Koran and the Hadiths. I also suggest you also read Qutb and the statements from IS's leader and chief spokesman as I have. Perhaps you will learn something. Perhaps you will remain so wedded to your cultural relativism you will remain blind.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/06/ben-affleck-and-bill-maher-are-both-wrong-about-islamic-fundamentalism/

From the above it is quite clear the hundreds of millions of Muslims are not ignoring even the most vile and risable passages like the "Death to Apostates" and "Stoning Adulterers" ones. Care to find similar sentiments held in such numbers among other religions in order to try to perpetuate your false equivalency?

I really detest this tactic that is so common here that when a discussion doesn't go your way you simply change the topic. I never argued that there were not Muslims that support horrible things. We have been discussing specific references in the Quran and actions by Muhammad related to beheading. There are very few Muslims today who support such things.

The article you reference -- since I guess we are now discussing a new topic -- shows that hundreds of millions of Muslims are ignoring even the most vile and disable passages of the Quran. In many countries, strong majorities ignore those passages. What that tells us is that discussing "Islam" as if it were a monolithic entity is useless. It is not a monolithic entity.

If you went to Uganda today and polled Christians whether they supported killing gays, I am pretty sure that you would find majority support. Uganda's anti-homosexual laws have had support from American Christians. Specific biblical passages are used to justify anti-gay measures. So, should this be used as justification to condemn all of Christianity?

If it is your position that Islam is a fundamentally evil religion, we are going to strongly disagree. If your point is simply that there are Muslims who are evil, we probably will find more common ground. I have the same position regarding every other religion as well.

I, on the other hand, regard all religions as evil. Among them, no religion has as much violent, reactionary content as Islam. This, combined with its lack of any distinction between temporal and religious authority makes it a uniquely malevolent force in the world. The question that should be asked of Muslims is whether they support Sharia law. If the answer is yes, they are an enemy of all the liberal values you and I hold dear. You may choose to ignore that fact. I will not.

You say that as if there were such a thing as an agreed upon, codified, universally-accepted thing as "Sharia law". Since there is not, the question you want to ask is pointless and only serves to highlight your own lack of understanding.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/06/ben-affleck-and-bill-maher-are-both-wrong-about-islamic-fundamentalism/

From the above it is quite clear the hundreds of millions of Muslims are not ignoring even the most vile and risable passages like the "Death to Apostates" and "Stoning Adulterers" ones. Care to find similar sentiments held in such numbers among other religions in order to try to perpetuate your false equivalency?

I really detest this tactic that is so common here that when a discussion doesn't go your way you simply change the topic. I never argued that there were not Muslims that support horrible things. We have been discussing specific references in the Quran and actions by Muhammad related to beheading. There are very few Muslims today who support such things.

The article you reference -- since I guess we are now discussing a new topic -- shows that hundreds of millions of Muslims are ignoring even the most vile and disable passages of the Quran. In many countries, strong majorities ignore those passages. What that tells us is that discussing "Islam" as if it were a monolithic entity is useless. It is not a monolithic entity.

If you went to Uganda today and polled Christians whether they supported killing gays, I am pretty sure that you would find majority support. Uganda's anti-homosexual laws have had support from American Christians. Specific biblical passages are used to justify anti-gay measures. So, should this be used as justification to condemn all of Christianity?

If it is your position that Islam is a fundamentally evil religion, we are going to strongly disagree. If your point is simply that there are Muslims who are evil, we probably will find more common ground. I have the same position regarding every other religion as well.

I, on the other hand, regard all religions as evil. Among them, no religion has as much violent, reactionary content as Islam. This, combined with its lack of any distinction between temporal and religious authority makes it a uniquely malevolent force in the world. The question that should be asked of Muslims is whether they support Sharia law. If the answer is yes, they are an enemy of all the liberal values you and I hold dear. You may choose to ignore that fact. I will not.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/06/ben-affleck-and-bill-maher-are-both-wrong-about-islamic-fundamentalism/

From the above it is quite clear the hundreds of millions of Muslims are not ignoring even the most vile and risable passages like the "Death to Apostates" and "Stoning Adulterers" ones. Care to find similar sentiments held in such numbers among other religions in order to try to perpetuate your false equivalency?

I really detest this tactic that is so common here that when a discussion doesn't go your way you simply change the topic. I never argued that there were not Muslims that support horrible things. We have been discussing specific references in the Quran and actions by Muhammad related to beheading. There are very few Muslims today who support such things.

The article you reference -- since I guess we are now discussing a new topic -- shows that hundreds of millions of Muslims are ignoring even the most vile and disable passages of the Quran. In many countries, strong majorities ignore those passages. What that tells us is that discussing "Islam" as if it were a monolithic entity is useless. It is not a monolithic entity.

If you went to Uganda today and polled Christians whether they supported killing gays, I am pretty sure that you would find majority support. Uganda's anti-homosexual laws have had support from American Christians. Specific biblical passages are used to justify anti-gay measures. So, should this be used as justification to condemn all of Christianity?

If it is your position that Islam is a fundamentally evil religion, we are going to strongly disagree. If your point is simply that there are Muslims who are evil, we probably will find more common ground. I have the same position regarding every other religion as well.

Anonymous wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/06/ben-affleck-and-bill-maher-are-both-wrong-about-islamic-fundamentalism/

From the above it is quite clear the hundreds of millions of Muslims are not ignoring even the most vile and risable passages like the "Death to Apostates" and "Stoning Adulterers" ones. Care to find similar sentiments held in such numbers among other religions in order to try to perpetuate your false equivalency?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad is Islam's prophet, delivering what in their belief is the final and perfected message of God. That is why his actions still have relevance.

His actions only have relevance to those who want them to be relevant. To most Muslims, the Battle of the Trench -- if they even know what it is -- is a historical event. It is not something to be emulated today. It has more relevance to those who want to tarnish Islam than it has to the average Muslim.

No. His actions are relevant to those who choose them to believe them relevant. That includes any Muslim who is not one in name only. The only relevant comparisons to Muhammad for Muslims would be Jesus for Christians or Moses for Jews or Buddha for Buddhists. Find me an actual Muslim scholar with any significant following that believes the actions and words of the Prophet have no relevance.

Your argument is laughable.

Your first sentence is practically the same as mine. So, if one is laughable, they both are. I don't care about Muslim scholars, but rather Muslims, the vast majority of whom are not scholars. Just as Christians choose specific verses to emphasize, while ignoring others, so do Muslims. Virtually none of them emphasize or even care about a battle that was well over a thousand years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad is Islam's prophet, delivering what in their belief is the final and perfected message of God. That is why his actions still have relevance.

His actions only have relevance to those who want them to be relevant. To most Muslims, the Battle of the Trench -- if they even know what it is -- is a historical event. It is not something to be emulated today. It has more relevance to those who want to tarnish Islam than it has to the average Muslim.

No. His actions are relevant to those who choose them to believe them relevant. That includes any Muslim who is not one in name only. The only relevant comparisons to Muhammad for Muslims would be Jesus for Christians or Moses for Jews or Buddha for Buddhists. Find me an actual Muslim scholar with any significant following that believes the actions and words of the Prophet have no relevance.

Your argument is laughable.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad is Islam's prophet, delivering what in their belief is the final and perfected message of God. That is why his actions still have relevance.

His actions only have relevance to those who want them to be relevant. To most Muslims, the Battle of the Trench -- if they even know what it is -- is a historical event. It is not something to be emulated today. It has more relevance to those who want to tarnish Islam than it has to the average Muslim.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so now we want to compare apples to apples?

Following groups have been beheading people in past year.

You have posted the post -- which I removed -- at least 20 times. The post is bigoted and insulting. I allowed it to remain a few times, but enough is enough. Please do not post it again because I will remove it every time I see it. You can find another website for your bigoted garbage.

The fundamental problem is the Quran, and Muslims treating the Quran as infallible. That is the common denominator.

The word "moderate" has lost its credibility. Fareed Zakaria has referred to Middle Eastern moderates as a "fantasy." Islam needs reformers, not moderates. And words like "reform" just don't go very well with words like "infallibility."

Sometimes, this kind of exchange will lead to the questioner being labeled an "Islamophobe," or being accused of bigotry, as Aslan did with Maher and his CNN hosts. This is a very serious charge that is very effective at ending the conversation. No one wants to be called a bigot.

Maher is absolutely correct in his recent comments. So I think it’s just how you frame it. And there’s a knee-jerk reaction sometimes among liberals — “Oh, we need to be protective of a group that certainly does face prejudice and bigotry in America” (and I’m certainly against that) — but we need to understand that it’s a wider issue.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so now we want to compare apples to apples?

Following groups have been beheading people in past year.

You have posted the post -- which I removed -- at least 20 times. The post is bigoted and insulting. I allowed it to remain a few times, but enough is enough. Please do not post it again because I will remove it every time I see it. You can find another website for your bigoted garbage.

The fundamental problem is the Quran, and Muslims treating the Quran as infallible. That is the common denominator.

The word "moderate" has lost its credibility. Fareed Zakaria has referred to Middle Eastern moderates as a "fantasy." Islam needs reformers, not moderates. And words like "reform" just don't go very well with words like "infallibility."

Sometimes, this kind of exchange will lead to the questioner being labeled an "Islamophobe," or being accused of bigotry, as Aslan did with Maher and his CNN hosts. This is a very serious charge that is very effective at ending the conversation. No one wants to be called a bigot.

Maher is absolutely correct in his recent comments. So I think it’s just how you frame it. And there’s a knee-jerk reaction sometimes among liberals — “Oh, we need to be protective of a group that certainly does face prejudice and bigotry in America” (and I’m certainly against that) — but we need to understand that it’s a wider issue.