Author Sam Harris... Witchdoctor?

[_GoodK]

Just kidding.

But I read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harri ... 00132.html

and found it interesting considering all the Mormon critics, yet the seemingly few Muslim critics. It's good, read it.

Geert Wilders, conservative Dutch politician and provocateur, has become the latest projectile in the world's most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam. Wilders, who lives under perpetual armed guard due to death threats, recently released a 15 minute film entitled Fitna ("strife" in Arabic) over the internet. The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial. Controversial or not, one surely would expect politicians and journalists in every free society to strenuously defend Wilders' right to make such a film. But then one would be living on another planet, a planet where people do not happily repudiate their most basic freedoms in the name of "religious sensitivity."

Witness the free world's response to Fitna: The Dutch government sought to ban the film outright, and European Union foreign ministers publicly condemned it, as did UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Dutch television refused to air Fitna unedited. When Wilders declared his intention to release the film over the internet, his U.S. web-host, Network Solutions, took his website offline. [...]

A point of comparison: The controversy of over Fitna was immediately followed by ubiquitous media coverage of a scandal involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs." [...]

Any honest comparison between these two faiths reveals a bizarre double standard in our treatment of religion. We can openly celebrate the marginalization of FLDS men and the rescue of their women and children. But, leaving aside the practical and political impossibility of doing so, could we even allow ourselves to contemplate liberating the women and children of traditional Islam? [...]


It is perverse for the western media to lament the lack of an Islamic reformation and willfully ignore works such as Wilders' film, Fitna. How do they think reformation will come about if not with criticism? There is no such right as 'the right not to be offended; indeed, I am deeply offended by the contents of the Koran, with its overt hatred of Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers, homosexuals but cannot demand its suppression.

It is time we recognized that those who claim the "right not to be offended" have also announced their hatred of civil society.

[_Loquacious Lurker]

Any honest comparison between these two faiths reveals a bizarre double standard in our treatment of religion. We can openly celebrate the marginalization of FLDS men and the rescue of their women and children. But, leaving aside the practical and political impossibility of doing so, could we even allow ourselves to contemplate liberating the women and children of traditional Islam? [...]

That's because the FLDS don't issue a Fatwah and stalk you until you've been murdered. :P

[_guy sajer]

Just kidding.

But I read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harri ... 100132.htm

and found it interesting considering all the Mormon critics, yet the seemingly few Muslim critics. It's good, read it.

Geert Wilders, conservative Dutch politician and provocateur, has become the latest projectile in the world's most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam. Wilders, who lives under perpetual armed guard due to death threats, recently released a 15 minute film entitled Fitna ("strife" in Arabic) over the internet. The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial. Controversial or not, one surely would expect politicians and journalists in every free society to strenuously defend Wilders' right to make such a film. But then one would be living on another planet, a planet where people do not happily repudiate their most basic freedoms in the name of "religious sensitivity."

Witness the free world's response to Fitna: The Dutch government sought to ban the film outright, and European Union foreign ministers publicly condemned it, as did UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Dutch television refused to air Fitna unedited. When Wilders declared his intention to release the film over the internet, his U.S. web-host, Network Solutions, took his website offline. [...]

A point of comparison: The controversy of over Fitna was immediately followed by ubiquitous media coverage of a scandal involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs." [...]

Any honest comparison between these two faiths reveals a bizarre double standard in our treatment of religion. We can openly celebrate the marginalization of FLDS men and the rescue of their women and children. But, leaving aside the practical and political impossibility of doing so, could we even allow ourselves to contemplate liberating the women and children of traditional Islam? [...]


It is perverse for the western media to lament the lack of an Islamic reformation and willfully ignore works such as Wilders' film, Fitna. How do they think reformation will come about if not with criticism? There is no such right as 'the right not to be offended; indeed, I am deeply offended by the contents of the Koran, with its overt hatred of Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers, homosexuals but cannot demand its suppression.

It is time we recognized that those who claim the "right not to be offended" have also announced their hatred of civil society.

I think what we're seeing here is a good deal of fear. It's as much (or less) an issue of privileging whacky religious beliefs/practices than an issue of not wanting to incite a riot of irrational Muslim youth or fear of becoming the victim of another irrational Jihad.

As a firm believer that the irrationality of religion demands to be exposed to the light of day, I think it high time that the world step up and hold Islam accountable for its despicable medieval beliefs and practices.

[_Mercury]

Any honest comparison between these two faiths reveals a bizarre double standard in our treatment of religion. We can openly celebrate the marginalization of FLDS men and the rescue of their women and children. But, leaving aside the practical and political impossibility of doing so, could we even allow ourselves to contemplate liberating the women and children of traditional Islam? [...]

That's because the FLDS don't issue a Fatwah and stalk you until you've been murdered. :P

They don't? Well, at least they don't anymore.

[_Imapiratewasher]

The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial. Controversial or not, one surely would expect politicians and journalists in every free society to strenuously defend Wilders' right to make such a film.

One would not appreciate Western society violence and abuse at such a level on Tv nevermind Eastern, so why should they have the right to make the movie, especially when it is known that it will turn Western civilisation against Islam even more than already occurs? Terrorism is only found in extremists, which is very few in comparison to the number of Muslims in the world. Such a movie would rile non Islamists against non-extreme Islam and all Islam. To make such a movie it would have to be made clear the facts and not merely an opinionated view. Not all Muslims are violent or extreme and the majority of Muslims will say the terrorists killing in the name of God(Allah) are not real Muslims, that this isn't Islam.

The Dutch government sought to ban the film outright, and European Union foreign ministers publicly condemned it, as did UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Dutch television refused to air Fitna unedited. When Wilders declared his intention to release the film over the internet, his U.S. web-host, Network Solutions, took his website offline.

Good, so they should. Releasing such a movie would provide amunition for war, do we really want more propaganda out there than all ready is???

But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs."

How can one say something is far more despicable??? We are looking at a small minority here. One must also take into account the law of the land. In Islamic originating countries, the law is different to the law here. What can we do about that? Going into another country and telling them to change there law will cause further war, don't we have enough? I have a lot of Islamic friends and some are forced into marriage, but not underage marriage and they have a choice. Especially in the Uk. A Muslim man must ask his first wifes approval in order to marry again. In the UK violence is a crime regardless of religious or cultural belief and so any law breaking Muslim is treated the same as any other being. Thus if there were a Muslim group doing the exact same thing as happening in Texas with the FLDS group, they would and should be treated in the same way as the FLDSers are now. We cannot go in and applie our laws in countries that do not abide by our laws.

I am quite sure it would be equally be wrong to make movie on what is happening in FLDSculture. But you also have to look at the proportions. Are all muslims extremists that quote Quran verses whilst commiting sin??? Are all FLDSers commiting sin??? This isn't a very good comparison. I understand where you are coming from. But I do not believe the film producers should be allowed to produce such a film, it is creating stigma about a group of people, when not the whole group belong in that set.

We can openly celebrate the marginalization of FLDS men and the rescue of their women and children. But, leaving aside the practical and political impossibility of doing so, could we even allow ourselves to contemplate liberating the women and children of traditional Islam?

We can openly celebrate liberating of women and children in traditional Islam IN OUR OWN COUNTRIES!But you must remember that the majority of Islamic women in Western society CHOOSE to live that way. We can only get involved if the law is being broken. We can liberate underage marriage of any being IN OUR COUNTRIES. In countries that have human rights laws.

we're seeing here is a good deal of fear. It's as much (or less) an issue of privileging whacky religious beliefs/practices than an issue of not wanting to incite a riot of irrational Muslim youth or fear of becoming the victim of another irrational Jihad.

As a firm believer that the irrationality of religion demands to be exposed to the light of day, I think it high time that the world step up and hold Islam accountable for its despicable medieval beliefs and practices.

I agree with you, agree a lot of people fear getting involved.

fear of becoming the victim of another irrational Jihad[/b].

Of ANOTHER irrational JIHAD???

Please tell me when the previous Jihad(s) was/were and when it/they ended?

Jihad is NOT the same as a terrorist attack. This is just a twisted view of extremists. The attack on the twin towers was not Jihad!

[_GoodK]

Not all Muslims are violent or extreme and the majority of Muslims will say the terrorists killing in the name of God(Allah) are not real Muslims, that this isn't Islam.

If this is true (it isn't) then where are the "majority of Muslims" saying this?

Jihad is NOT the same as a terrorist attack. This is just a twisted view of extremists. The attack on the twin towers was not Jihad!

Says you (and other Islamic sympathizers). Those that flew planes into the twin towers were very clearly engaged in a jihad.

[_guy sajer]

we're seeing here is a good deal of fear. It's as much (or less) an issue of privileging whacky religious beliefs/practices than an issue of not wanting to incite a riot of irrational Muslim youth or fear of becoming the victim of another irrational Jihad.

As a firm believer that the irrationality of religion demands to be exposed to the light of day, I think it high time that the world step up and hold Islam accountable for its despicable medieval beliefs and practices.

I agree with you, agree a lot of people fear getting involved.

fear of becoming the victim of another irrational Jihad[/b].

Of ANOTHER irrational JIHAD???

Please tell me when the previous Jihad(s) was/were and when it/they ended?

Jihad is NOT the same as a terrorist attack. This is just a twisted view of extremists. The attack on the twin towers was not Jihad!

Ok, give me a break. I did not mean Jihad in any literal sense, but rather to imply an general irrational "war" against infidels, or something of the like.

Am I forgiven??

[_Mercury]

Not all Muslims are violent or extreme and the majority of Muslims will say the terrorists killing in the name of God(Allah) are not real Muslims, that this isn't Islam.

If this is true (it isn't) then where are the "majority of Muslims" saying this?

Jihad is NOT the same as a terrorist attack. This is just a twisted view of extremists. The attack on the twin towers was not Jihad!

Says you (and other Islamic sympathizers). Those that flew planes into the twin towers were very clearly engaged in a jihad.

A jihad is a holy war and does not exclusively emply terrorist tactics. The fight against Russia in Afghanistan was a Jihad.

[_Imapiratewasher]

If this is true (it isn't) then where are the "majority of Muslims" saying this?

The Quran is very clear that the believers must defend themselves but never to aggress. It is true that Islam (Submission) calls for the followers to be strong. This call however is to use the strength to secure peace, provide freedom for the society and the country but never to agress unless agressed upon.

...

The blame lies with the terrorists and not the religion they claim to adhere to. Not everyone who calls himself a Muslim is a Muslim as much as not every one who thinks of himself as a Jew or a Christian is one.

The religion of Islam should not be confused by what these so called Muslims have done. They actually, by the definition of the Quran, are not Muslims or at least as much Muslims as the Ku Klux Klan are good Christians. We should not let our emotions overcome our logic and understanding.

You ought to find out what Jihad actually is. I understood what you meant, but that was not Jihad.
I am NOT an Islamic sympathiser. I just do not agree wth the extreme judgemental views and don't feel it is Ok to label every Muslim in that way, I do not agree that Islam is like that. I believe that radical extremists and some have misinterpreted scripture and have fell into the trap of believing Iranian governmental propaganda.

Guy you are forgiven, for those that do not understand what I mean by Jihad...

I was personally threatened, trust me it crap me up.

Again, Jihad has been misunderstood by radicals. Jihad is nothing like that which is shown in Media. Luckily we Brits don't get as much as you. There are different views of Jihad within different stems of Islam. Jihad literally means to struggle, it is not intended as we see now and the Quran promotes peace. It says only to fight in defense. The type we see in the world today by radical Islamists is due to their misinterpretation of Jihad of the Sword. This is when they fight against oppression and against those who reject Islam after being made known what it is. This is what was threatened unto me. I didn't take it serious. I was told that if this person told me about Islam and asked me to convert and I said No, after the third time he has the right to kill me. This is a misinterpretation and is not the view of all muslims or Islam.

The reason I said the twin towers being attacked was not Jihad is because the type of Jihad in this case is the "Holy war" as it likes to be called, it is sad because this isn't the holy war, they have the wrong view. The twin towers being attacked is not the Holy War. The holy war as these extremists believe it begun a long time ago. Spain was attacked also. Jihad is when Muslims try to convert the powers of the world and those who do not listen are to be destroyed. If this were truelly God'd Jihad, then God would make it so that they would win, but this is not what is meant by Jihad in the Quran. You guys probably have the US department of social justice's version of Jihad in mind.

I am not saying Muslims are all good, because they are Old Testament, but there have been terrorists of all religions. The sad thing is that the Islamic government are stirring the hearts of the people to make them think we are attacking them, that we are against them. Sad, because our governments are doing the same. It is all propaganda.

According to the Quran, killing innocents, women and children IS WRONG.

Islam is not to blame. People's interpretations are.

[_GoodK]

Islam is not to blame. People's interpretations are.

A few thoughts from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harri ... 15841.html

While intelligent people can disagree about how "innocent" the theology of Islam is, a willingness to admit the obvious is a basic requirement of religious moderation. Any Muslim who will not concede that there is a death-cult forming in the Muslim world, is either part of that cult, or an obscurantist -- not a religious moderate.

How will Muslim moderates view women and women's rights? They will feel what any person who is reasonably free of medieval dogmatism now feels. Equal rights for women is not even a question worthy of discussion among religious moderates, and it is not a subject about which moderate Muslims will have the slightest caveat. Anyone who believes that men should determine how women dress, or whether they receive medical attention, marry, divorce, practice contraception, or do anything else with their minds and bodies is not a religious moderate. He (or she) is a religious demagogue on a collision course with modernity

According to a literalist reading of the hadith (the literature that recounts the sayings and the actions of the Prophet) if a Muslim decides that he no longer wants to be a Muslim, he should be put to death.

The essence of religious moderation is the understanding that a person should be free to interpret the data of the universe for himself, without fearing that he will be murdered for reaching an unpopular conclusion. We should note that this is a standard of enlightened tolerance that not even the former folk-singer Cat Stevens (now Yosuf Islam) could muster in response to the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses:

"Under Islamic Law, the ruling regarding blasphemy is quite clear; the person found guilty of it must be put to death. Only under certain circumstances can repentance be accepted.... The fact is that as far as the application of Islamic Law and the implementation of full Islamic way of life in Britain is concerned, Muslims realize that there is very little chance of that happening in the near future. But that shouldn't stop us from trying to improve the situation and presenting the Islamic viewpoint wherever and whenever possible. That is the duty of every Muslim..."

If even a Western-educated ex-hippie was talking this way, what do you think the sentiments were on the streets of Tehran? As it turns out, it matters if a person believes that the Koran literally emanated from the Creator of the universe. This belief is genuinely incompatible with religious moderation.