Bill Maher: Islam is inherently worse than other religions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mars Hill aficionado.

Yeah, but even Mars Hill has tossed out Mark Driscoll now.

[Berzerker]

One of the problems is that it might or might not be depending on the situation which is why Islamists have so much success convincing so many people that god wants them to do it. Suicide is forbidden in the Koran but dying while fight infidels gets you a free ticket to heaven. The Islamists argue that the intent is to attack enemies and the bomber just dies in the act ergo it is sanctioned and different from simple suicide which is forbidden.

what a wonderful religion, suicide bombers are doing God's work and anyone who commits suicide rather than be blown up by a suicide bomber is the sinner

any religion claiming suicide is a sin is bs, I'd expect that from one holding Jesus up as a prophet while ignoring his condemnations of public prayer

[Kidlicious]

what a wonderful religion, suicide bombers are doing God's work and anyone who commits suicide rather than be blown up by a suicide bomber is the sinner

any religion claiming suicide is a sin is bs, I'd expect that from one holding Jesus up as a prophet while ignoring his condemnations of public prayer

Some people think they get into heaven because they are part of a group or they have social status.

[Boris Godunov]

Because the former denies agency to human beings, while the latter leaves open the possibility of change. In order to be evil, you have to be able to make meaningful choices. A child-like ****** might hurt or even kill people, but he wouldn't be evil if he didn't understand his actions or their consequences. He would be no more culpable than a dingo eating a baby. Someone who is severely impaired and incapable of making moral judgements can't be made to understand right and wrong. There's no hope for improvement.

An evil person might just be misguided. Maybe they are committed to being evil, but probably they're just confused. They might just have a mistaken view of the world, one that can be corrected through persuasion or through new experiences. Evil is contestable and correctable. When we accept that people are morally culpable for their actions, we can treat them like adults. When we make excuses for them, we treat them like toddlers. Adults can take responsibility. Toddlers are somebody else's responsibility.

What a wonderfully simplistic dichotomy that completely ignores any semblance of actual reality in terms of how human beings actually work.

[Dinner]

one of the remarkable things about this debate is the number of people whose criticism of islam is textual; those same people not actually having read the text!

Except I have. If you reread my old Iraq thread you'll find I bought an English language version and read the whole damn thing. Something I've also done with the Bible (hint: they were both boring reads).

[Felch]

What a wonderfully simplistic dichotomy that completely ignores any semblance of actual reality in terms of how human beings actually work.

Looks to me like you don't have any semblance of a counter-argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran, you stated that suicide bombing is contrary to the Koran and then stated that 'text' evidence backs you up. Yet... I don't see a citation. Do you have one?

[N35t0r]

How rich. Ben demanding other people for evidence supporting their posts.

[Fake Boris]

It's irrelevant though, because Maher isn't talking about body counts, he's talking about illiberal societies. Which is what we are discussing. Muslim societies are illiberal because Islam is a political religion, that allows for no separation between faith and government. Christians have always had room for a distinction (e.g. Matthew 22:21).

Except that post-WW2 Arabs (note: Arabs, not Muslims) developed secular, nationalist, and decolonialist regimes that were considered enemy by Western powers.

Lebanon - ****ed over
Al Assad - ****ed over
Iraq - invaded
Egypt - invaded by the UK and France
The Shah - abandoned by its US allies (who had originally thought the islamists would be easy to buy off)
Gaddafi - enemy of the West, overthrown by NATO-backed islamists
Tunisian regime - abandoned, now ruled by islamists
Fatah - undermined until Hamas showed up
Saudi Arabia - fundie monarchy, close US ally

Now to Afghanistan (non-Arabs but Muslims): islamists were supported in their fight against the USSR
Turkey (non-Arabs): long history of secularism, threatened by the regime's inability to respond to popular needs

You're just the typical product of disinformation. Your country keeps overthrowing, harassing and isolating secular regimes in Muslim countries; when it meets success, you blame Muslims for being illiberal.

[Ben Kenobi]

How rich. Ben demanding other people for evidence supporting their posts.

You're admitting that Imran's argument has no basis?

[Ben Kenobi]

when it meets success, you blame Muslims for being illiberal.

You're blaming America for Lebanon? You don't know your history.

[Fake Boris]

We're unfortunately completely misled on the issue of islamism. These regimes have propped up for different reasons in various countries, but here's a run-down. (Criteria don't necessarily apply in the same manner everywhere).

1) Western fear of pan-arabic nationalism. In the wake of the Cold War Arabs theorized a secular identity of a single Arab nation, distinct of the Muslim religion, driving inspiration from the decolonization movements. This idea drew large sympathy from Arab middle classes. US/Nato had absolutely no intention of letting a major pan-arabic state forming itself and did everything in its power to curb it. Indeed, such a state would have likely leaned towards socialism and the USSR.

2) Lack of democracy. Arab secularists often established authoritarian or pseudo-democratic regimes. While far from perfect, many perceived them as better than Ottoman or Western rule. In the context of limited political freedom, the natural place of political dissent turned out to be the mosques, as it was often the only place where public rallies were allowed and possible. This nurtured islamism as the main political opposition.

3) US support of Israel. The conflict there with Palestinians was originally perceived as an ethnic conflict of decolonization. As positions on both sides radicalized (Israel politics became less and less liberal/secular, Hamas sprang up in reaction to Fatah's inability of liberating Palestinians), so did public opinion in the Arab world. It eventually became such a hot-button issue that public perception began to see it as a religious conflict, rather than a decolonization one (with full promotion of this interpretation by imams). This process has weakened the position of secular Arabs.

4) Lebanon. The Lebanese civil war was fully wished by the US. Lebanon, a relatively liberal and tolerant place, but very diverse in religion, was evolving towards a democratic and secular regime that would put an end to religious quotas in elections. Israel and the US feared that such a revolution would snowball into pan-arabism, and entertained to **** the country over.

5) Social inequality. Islamists are socially conservative populists. They've been able to garner support by providing charity, health and education to the disenfranchised masses, which the government often didn't. When in power, they tend to hand in candies to the working classes while supporting traditional big business. These policies are often not very good in the long run, but they're pretty good at winning elections.

6) Elites in Arab countries tend to live in a westernized manner. From a populist perspective, the equation becomes: corrupt fatcat = westernized, us real people = Muslim. Educated Muslims can make the distinction between "westernized fatcat" and "authentic secular liberal", which undereducated masses often can't. Islam in the mind of many becomes the material expression of the rift between foreign colonial powers supporting Israel, and "real people". Think of Islam as guns in the US or the monarchy in the UK.

[N35t0r]

You're admitting that Imran's argument has no basis?

No, I'm laughing at the fact that you, who often presents ridiculous claims as facts while providing no support, demand such from others. Do you seriously fail that much at reading comprehension that you understood that from my post?

[DinoDoc]

Imran, you stated that suicide bombing is contrary to the Koran and then stated that 'text' evidence backs you up. Yet... I don't see a citation. Do you have one?

Well there are Koranic verses prohibiting both suicide and murder. Seriously, it's fine if you'd like to actually engage him in a debate over the nature of the Koran but for the love of all that is holy can you rise above such obvious penny ante BS. The terrorist organizations themselves have provided the verses and the interpretations they use if an honest textual debate is indeed what you are after.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except that post-WW2 Arabs (note: Arabs, not Muslims) developed secular, nationalist, and decolonialist regimes that were considered enemy by Western powers.

Great point .

Heck, say what you want about the evils of Saddam's Iraq (and there were tons of evil), one thing that people agreed about it is that it provided for a good deal of women's rights and was fairly good to religious minorities (yes, Saddam persecuted the Kurds, but they were the same religion he was ). He was an absolute dick if you were a considered a political enemy, but the rest of the society would have been consider a whole heck of a lot more liberal than the current Iraq is.