RustyNails
Member
What is? That Muhammad drove out the Meccans? I would like you to tell me when that happened.Rusty, it's right there in the language.
What is? That Muhammad drove out the Meccans? I would like you to tell me when that happened.Rusty, it's right there in the language.
What is? That Muhammad drove out the Meccans? I would like you to tell me when that happened.
No, i meant the last verse in that passage i quoted. And by driving out the Meccans i mean those that would not adhere to Islam and the one true god. The paganism that was once there was eradicated in Mecca and it was turned into Islams holy place. Was it not? Obviously he couldn't drive everyone out.
Lets move on from this for now. How do you feel about what has transpired in Canada this week? Do you still not believe radicalism is taking over the image of your version of Islam around the world?
No. I think nutjobs are taking over the image of Islam. Seriously. ISIS are nutjobs. The guy in Ottawa was a mental case. ISIS is like a light to flies to people with psychopathic tendencies.
What kinda verse were you expecting from a situation where Meccan warriors come marching down to Madinah to destroy it? "Hey guys, so the Meccans are coming. No worries or anything. Just stay in your homes and wait for death. See y'all in heaven. XOXO"
Not that I'm defending what he's saying, but passages on justifying warfare and killing under defensive circumstances are not what I'd expect from an interventionist, benevolent, omnipotent god whose absolute morality pervades the cosmos, no. It's 100% what I'd expect from a human religious leader in 5th/6th century Arabia, though.
If you're making a comparison to other religions, it's certainly plausible to see pacifism married to self sacrifice. Buddhist theology doesn't give us just war theory, and Jesus was all about martyrdom. Old testament Christianity is iffy as usual, and seems to be a completely unrelated god to the Gospel peacenik god.
What about the guy that ran over the soldiers with his car? Also just a maniac?
No. I think nutjobs are taking over the image of Islam. Seriously. ISIS are nutjobs. The guy in Ottawa was a mental case. ISIS is like a light to flies to people with psychopathic tendencies.
Any person with an iota of reason would tell you that those behaviours have no place in any modern society. Aren't these practices limited to certain parts of the Muslim world, or is it endemic everywhere?Is stoning to death adulterers a psychopathic tendency? How about death for apostates?
Re: Christianity . . . there is a lot of barbarism in the Bible but it is mostly in the old testament and there is the Christian rationalization about "How through Jesus's grace, all the old testament teachings are not really relevant and can be ignore . . . just follow the stuff Jesus says".
Another one that Sam did not bring up and that I view as troublesome is that Christians just view the Bible as "inspired by god" but not the literal word of god. This allows them to do a lot of pick & choosing. Whereas general Islamic theology is that the Quran is the literal word of god as brought to us by the prophet. If you believe that the Quran is the literal perfect word of god . . . it really doesn't give you much wiggle room to pick & choose.
Any person with an iota of reason would tell you that those behaviours have no place in any modern society.
This week was the first time in the history of Canada that we've been attacked by terrorists tied to radical Islam. All of our other terrorists have either been of other religions, anti-government psychopaths, or Quebec separatists (Trudeau put the entire province of Quebec under martial law because of the FLQ). Why are people acting as if we're under siege?
Ungyur appeals to emotion, not logic, kinda like Maher.
Here's Sam Harris taken skillfully apart on Palestine by someone who can actually string two thoughts together: Andrew Sullivan.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/making-sense-of-gaza
It would be remiss of me not to point out that none of this would be a problem in the absence of religion. Thats what makes a one-state solution unthinkableor, indeed, a one-world solution.
I answered the verse you pulled out of context, where you excluded the preceeding verse which beings with "Permission is given to fight those that fight you". You tried to pry about my beliefs when you didn't have an answer.No, i meant the last verse in that passage i quoted.
Trying to backpedal wont help you. Muhammad did not drive out the Meccans after conquering Mecca, but forgave them, including the ruling chief of Quraish who declared his pagan gods useless and converted to Islam. This wasn't the norm. There are very few, if any, instances of grand amnesty in medieval history. Conquererors that usually sack a city run the rivers red especially in a place like 6th century Arabia where blood fueds lasted 40 years. Paganism was gone, because the Kaaba which housed the idols was rededicated to monotheism as per the beliefs of Muslims.And by driving out the Meccans i mean those that would not adhere to Islam and the one true god. The paganism that was once there was eradicated in Mecca and it was turned into Islams holy place. Was it not? Obviously he couldn't drive everyone out.
Have fun discussing this with others, but I jumped in the thread to address your claims. But I do think radicalization is currently a problem in Muslim communities.Lets move on from this for now. How do you feel about what has transpired in Canada this week? Do you still not believe radicalism is taking over the image of your version of Islam around the world?
Harris is such a clown. This passage illustrates the shortcomings of his analysis:
No, Israel/Palestine would not stop being an issue if religion disappeared. Culture, ethnicity, history, racial divisions matter. Zionism began as a secular movement. The PLO wasn't islamist, and neither was Nasser. I can't believe Sullivan went along with this bit of nonsense. Harris obviously knows nothing about the Middle East outside of religion, so he has to make everything in the region the result of religion.
And you ignored the part where it says "and fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah." Your beliefs matter because if you believe this is the word of god there should be no issues in interpretations and yet apparently there is amongst a good portion of the muslim population.I answered the verse you pulled out of context, where you excluded the preceeding verse which beings with "Permission is given to fight those that fight you". You tried to pry about my beliefs when you didn't have an answer.
Gone because there was no chance of repelling it out. They were conquered and had no choice. But yah, the converts were sparred.Paganism was gone, because the Kaaba which housed the idols was rededicated to monotheism as per the beliefs of Muslims.
There is a discussion between Sam and Reza that you can find and watch on the netis this worth listening to? I love Sam Harris but i'm afraid this is going to be the same old shit
I would really to hear Reza Aslan and Sam Harris discuss this topic - guy seems really competent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw
there is no use arguing this historical point because its going to fall on deaf ears. I gave the contexual verses to Son of Sam before and his retort was well ISIS is true islam yours is fake Islam and gave falsified misleading statements as facts. I realise the only way to deal with people who dont want to listen is reduce the discussion to a point that there is no discussion
You're falling into the same thinking Harris does. Jewishness, in addition to being a religion, is a culture. Theodore Herzl, the father of Zionism, was a Jewish atheist, who explicitly framed the movement in terms of nationalism and not religion. When he talked about a Jewish state, do you think he excluded himself from being a part of that state? Yes, religion is a large part of how both Palestine and Israel define themselves as nations, but there are a number of other parts as well (language, shared history, ancestry, etc).Uh... the problem with the '1 state solution' is then it would no longer be a Jewish state. But if Judaism and Islam did not exist then problem solved. But the religions do exist so we have problems.
I think anyone that claims that the Israeli/Palestinan issue has nothing to do with religion are just fooling themselves.
What Herzl's views were when founding Israel have no relevance to the current dispute. Perhaps you can enlighten me why the state of mind of a dead guy matter.You're falling into the same thinking Harris does. Jewishness, in addition to being a religion, is a culture. Theodore Herzl, the father of Zionism, was a Jewish atheist, who explicitly framed the movement in terms of nationalism and not religion. When he talked about a Jewish state, do you think he excluded himself from being a part of that state? Yes, religion is a large part of how both Palestine and Israel define themselves as nations, but there are a number of other parts as well (language, shared history, ancestry, etc).
What Herzl's views were when founding Israel have no relevance to the current dispute. Perhaps you can enlighten me why the state of mind of a dead guy matter.
No, that is not what the quote above says.Because Harris said that if you removed religion there would be no Palestine Israeli conflict?
What Herzl's views were when founding Israel have no relevance to the current dispute. Perhaps you can enlighten me why the state of mind of a dead guy matter.
Harris: I completely agree. And, obviously, displaced people need to be compensated. That would be the only ethical way to do itif it had to be done.
Sullivan: But do you understand why people would still say, Fuck it, I live in my home. This has been my home forever. Why should I have to leave my
Harris: It would be remiss of me not to point out that none of this would be a problem in the absence of religion. Thats what makes a one-state solution unthinkableor, indeed, a one-world solution.
This is, of course, ignoring the mention of a "one-world solution," the most clownish part.
Also, going over it again in context, I don't think "none of this would be a problem without religion" is referring solely to the one-state solution:
I find people like Harris who use a very shallow knowledge of a subject to pass judgement annoying. Where did I misinterpret him?Your posts are interesting to me because I didn't find Harris persuasive when I first read that blog post, and I still don't ultimately agree with him. It's an area where I think Sullivan is right to say that he has the balance slightly wrong, but as to why, that's a whole other thread.
With that said, you are misrepresenting what he is saying about the role of religion as though he oversimplifies it just to call him a clown repeatedly. I genuinely don't understand the need to do this. Maybe you are genuinely reading his statement incorrectly, I don't know, but I suspect it's not that simple given how oafish you like to paint him.
Ok...apparently you've found the solution to the Israeli/Palestinan issue. I think you should call up Bibi tomorrow and explain to him and the knesset that they are not running Israel according to the founders view. With this knowledge you provide them, I'm sure they'll give all Palestinans citizenship and the right to vote thus creating a 1 state solution. I smell a Nobel Peace Prize in your future!The views of the founder of the ideology of which Israel is the manifestation matters greatly. I don't know why that needs to be explained. There's a long tradition of secular zionism, which would imply that "a Jewish state" means more than a state where the majority follow the Jewish religion.
This is, of course, ignoring the mention of a "one-world solution," the most clownish part.
Also, going over it again in context, I don't think "none of this would be a problem without religion" is referring solely to the one-state solution:
I find people like Harris who use a very shallow knowledge of a subject to pass judgement annoying. Where did I misinterpret him?
And you ignored the part where it says "and fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah." Your beliefs matter because if you believe this is the word of god there should be no issues in interpretations and yet apparently there is amongst a good portion of the muslim population.
Ok...apparently you've found the solution to the Israeli/Palestinan issue. I think you should call up Bibi tomorrow and explain to him and the knesset that they are not running Israel according to the founders view. With this knowledge you provide them, I'm sure they'll give all Palestinans citizenship and the right to vote thus creating a 1 state solution. I smell a Nobel Peace Prize in your future!
I don't think you understood the one-world comment.
"No, Israel/Palestine would not stop being an issue if religion disappeared."
That's not what he said or implied. Sullivan let it slide because that wasn't what Harris was arguing.
I don't want to go over the entire conversation, but you can reread it, I suppose. Sullivan advocates for a Jewish state simply out of necessity. Harris agrees. Both of them clearly indicate (which is evidenced in their own writings on this issue) this is an imperfect solution, but that a two state solution is the only practical way forward. Then Sullivan brings up how impossible it seems to partition the area, which makes this seemingly practical step toward a solution very complicated.
At this point, Harris is lamenting this fact and saying they are confronted with this apparent paradox because of the religious divide. It makes the goal of a one state solution so impractical as to force anyone analyzing the problem to accept the idea of a Jewish state - which Harris opposes in principle. That's the reason he said what he said. It does not mean "by the way, without religion the problems take care of themselves." That would make absolutely no sense, which is fine because it's not what was said.
But again, is it because of the religious divide? That's what I'm taking issue with here.
in the end it was kind of a cop outto say it was a pure philosophical discussion and not about policybut he always tends to argue things connected to the real world so these long-term consequences should factor into decisions being made.
another interesting outcome from the discussion was when Sam contemplated the possibility that his views could indeed be more detrimentalor that Muslims could not identify the good guys from the bad and thuslead to more extremism despite good intentions. I think cenk was correct in pointing out that we have not been the good guys enough and thus bear some responsibility.
if we are going to claim to be the good guys we have to act like it
Actually, I remember taking you to task a few months ago for claiming that Islamic governments were uniquely repressive and murderous. (in contemporary history anyway)No one actually does this, except for a hardcore fringe. Could you point out where in the other thread (or any thread) this happened? I can think of maybe Hindle and one or two others. I'm not even sure about them.
Let me clarify the position that reasonable people often take:
Islam may cause some problems in the Middle East and elsewhere. It does not cause all problems. Islam may be one factor that increases the chance of people going crazy, holding crazy views, or doing crazy things. It is not the only factor.
That is the most dominant and salient divide, yes.
The views of the founder of the ideology of which Israel is the manifestation matters greatly. I don't know why that needs to be explained. There's a long tradition of secular zionism, which would imply that "a Jewish state" means more than a state where the majority follow the Jewish religion.
This is, of course, ignoring the mention of a "one-world solution," the most clownish part.
Also, going over it again in context, I don't think "none of this would be a problem without religion" is referring solely to the one-state solution:
I'd strongly disagree, the divide is more about ethnicity than religion (although religion obviously plays a part in defining an ethnic group). Keep in mind that Palestinians are not solely Muslim. A significant minority of them are Christian and Druze, and they are counted as part of the demographic "threat" to Israel.
I don't know why people feel the need to spar on message boards in this way. The sparring has already been done by people infinitely more reasonable, logical, and educated than you in the form of a video posted by OP.
Your comments on Harris' opinion are not particularly insightful or meaningful. Disregard everything the two said in the interview to attempt to conduct a low-end discussion here that just retreads the topic in a way that you understand just so you can feel a semblance of victory.
They only disagreed when it got down to the fine details. Harris comes from the point of view that calculates everything as if it were a chess piece, Cenk will make a rebuttal that is more grounded in the world we have today. Different ways of handling the same thing in a lot of places. Neither person are particularly ignorant or missing the intimate knowledge that you claim to own. You should do some homework.
OKThe reason I responded to you initially was to point out that Harris' statement you quoted doesn't play the role in his argument that you said it did. If you think he is oversimplifying, I am ok with that. I wanted to show that he wasn't saying 'if you remove religion, the conflict is resolved.' That would indeed be a gross oversimplification of the entire issue, but that's not what he is doing. It's just an issue of framing.
That you ultimately believe religion is not the most dominant factor in the divide is something that, while I disagree with it, is not something I would care to argue. I have no issue with your belief as I think there are a variety of factors and reasonable people can come to different conclusions.
My shaky understanding of an ancient text. Who would've thought? So, whose ultimately right about them then? I'm not right, fundamentalist jihadists aren't right. Moderates aren't right. This is exactly what Sam Harris wants, an open discussion about the text. You can't have these debates in most muslims countries without violence. Again, only a current problem with Islam...also, even if that is the case, so what? rustynails isn't arguing that the Abrahamic god exists, he's calling you out on your shaky understanding of a specific verse in the quran. Stop deflecting.
Ungyur appeals to emotion, not logic, kinda like Maher.
Here's Sam Harris taken skillfully apart on Palestine by someone who can actually string two thoughts together: Andrew Sullivan.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/making-sense-of-gaza
Ungyur appeals to emotion, not logic, kinda like Maher.
Here's Sam Harris taken skillfully apart on Palestine by someone who can actually string two thoughts together: Andrew Sullivan.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/making-sense-of-gaza
Glad to see you still have your authority on that matter. A bit ironic that probably 90% of worldwide muslims would not even recognize your sect as an actual islam, but yeah carry on.
Also glad to see the arrogant RustyNails drive-bys.
And on the topic of your quote, I never got an answer on how the defensive muslim armies got to defending themselves all the way to Spain (711) and Austria (1683). Or were the Ottomans and Moors not "real muslims" either?
Sounds like Taliban level generalising, 90%. Nice. Now answer this; Why are muslim leaders around the world condemning ISIS (Sunni and Shia) if they represent true Islam? (dont say because they're 10%)
Sounds like Taliban level generalising, 90%. Nice. Now answer this; Why are muslim leaders around the world condemning ISIS (Sunni and Shia) if they represent true Islam? (dont say because they're 10%)
This is a great post, thank you for sharing it.
I'd be interested in knowing which part you regarded as one-sided though. Sullivan agreed with many of Harris' points, if not the majority. They differed on original intents.
(Also, as a fan of both, calling Sullivan the cool detached unemotional one is fucking hilarious).
There's been instances where these leaders condemn it in the public domain only to turn around and support it behind closed doors.
There's been instances where these leaders condemn it in the public domain only to turn around and support it behind closed doors.
What about the guy that ran over the soldiers with his car? Also just a maniac?
You're recalling incorrectly. I dug up the old discussion, and I never claimed that. Here's the link in case you (or anyone else) wants to revisit the discussion and verify: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=124482383#post124482383Actually, I remember taking you to task a few months ago for claiming that Islamic governments were uniquely repressive and murderous. (in contemporary history anyway)
From what I recall, you smartly backed out of that argument.