patrick.net

Here is a question????
What good is Islam?????

Strategist says

What good is Islam?????

Wrong.
The question is what to do about it.

Heraclitusstudent says

The question is what to do about it.

Ageed. SOme choose to "get their feelings on" as if that's a solution.

In Europe where Muslim populations run anywhere from twice as high to about 9 times as high (France) as our Muslim population in the U.S. this is some statistics on demographics and opinions in Europe based on the reality of having significant Muslim populations in their countries.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/

Muslim population is a little under 1% here.

Heraclitusstudent says

On the other liberals need to do more to call out evil and not tolerate intolerance

Do you know any liberals who do not call out ISIS as evil fucks? When they argue with republicans about things, do you confuse that disagreement with acceptance of jihad?

YesYNot says

Do you know any liberals who do not call out ISIS as evil fucks? When they argue with republicans about things, do you confuse that disagreement with acceptance of jihad?

Yes, I have seen plenty. Even today I saw someone on FB saying France caused the attack by bombing Isis.
I've seen the same kind of self flagellation with the Charlie attack: "they looked for it".

We need to be saying clearly these Islamic ideas: Jihad, hatred of infidels, killing people for apostasy, blaspheme, adultery, or whatever are not to be tolerated.
We need to DEMAND that every muslim explicitly renounce to them.

Instead the first reaction of many liberals is: that's our fault.

Here is an other writing from Sam Harris on the same theme.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon

"there is now a large industry of obfuscation designed to protect Muslims from having to grapple with these truths. Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations. What are their real motivations? Insert here the most abject hopes and projections of secular liberalism: How would you feel if Western imperialists and their mapmakers had divided your lands, stolen your oil, and humiliated your proud culture? Devout Muslims merely want what everyone wants—political and economic security, a piece of land to call home, good schools for their children, a little leisure to enjoy the company of friends. Unfortunately, most of my fellow liberals appear to believe this. In fact, to not accept this obscurantism as a deep insight into human nature and immediately avert one’s eyes from the teachings of Islam is considered a form of bigotry.

In any conversation on this topic, one must continually deploy a firewall of caveats and concessions to irrelevancy: Of course, U.S. foreign policy has problems. Yes, we really must get off oil. No, I did not support the war in Iraq. Sure, I’ve read Chomsky. No doubt, the Bible contains equally terrible passages. Yes, I heard about that abortion clinic bombing in 1984. No, I’m sorry to say that Hitler and Stalin were not motivated by atheism. The Tamil Tigers? Of course, I’ve heard of them. Now can we honestly talk about the link between belief and behavior? "

marcus says

Muslim population is a little under 1% here.

Talking of Pew:

So in France 35% of Muslims think suicide bombing is justified. These are unbelievable numbers.
This is a war of ideas but what is done to confront HEAD-ON these kind of beliefs? Next to nothing.
"it's their culture"
"Islam gives hope to billions of people" blah blah blah...

bgamall4 says

How did the French Jews know that there would be an imminent attack on Friday Morning of the attack?

Countdown to the "Why is this alleged Survivor of the Concert bombing Smiling" in 3... 2... 1...

bgamall4 says

France did bomb ISIS. Is there a cause and effect? Hard to say.

Look:
1 - Is Isis acting with the aim of imposing Jihad, hatred of infidels, killing people for apostasy, blaspheme, or adultery?
We all know they are.
2 - Are these aims pure evil?
Of course they are.
3 - Are we fighting them militarily?
Evidently.
4 - Are their aims just a blowback from our actions?
No these aims are enshrined in muslim teachings since Islam was created. Long before Bush or Hollande came around.
5 - But are we confronting these ideas head-on wherever they are supported?

Obviously not. And this is where there is a huge deficit in this fight.
This is one of the great battle of ideas of the 21st century, and by basic moral cowardice we are just avoiding battle altogether.

bgamall4 says

A just another bigoted prick.

Let me quote again Sam Harris from above:
"In fact, to not accept this obscurantism as a deep insight into human nature and immediately avert one’s eyes from the teachings of Islam is considered a form of bigotry."

bgamall4 says

France did bomb ISIS. Is there a cause and effect? Hard to say.

That's the trouble with the dumb French, and the dumb USA. When you bomb barbarians like ISIS, you don't stop until none of them are left standing.

bgamall4 says

How did the French Jews know that there would be an imminent attack on Friday Morning of the attack?

It happens every few hours. Duh!

bgamall4 says

I have a lot of questions.

Why bother. You already have the answers.

Ironman says:"They're too busy getting in line for Hillary's and Bernie's freebies to call out ISIS!"

There aren't any freebies. Rep/Con/Teas have sucked the teat dry.

Heraclitusstudent says

So in France 35% of Muslims think suicide bombing is justified.

That is "ever justified" or 100% minus the 65% who say it's never justified. Of those who say it is ever justified, I assume they are thinking of Palestinians in Gaza etc. OF the 16% who say it is sometimes to often justified, most of them may also be thinking of Palestinians.

Not that that is okay, but it's different than thinking that doing bombings of innocent French or American civilians is okay.

marcus says

Not that that is okay, but it's different than thinking that doing bombings of innocent French or American civilians is okay.

Missing the point. If 35% of Southerners thought Lynchings were okay, you wouldn't be saying

"Well, that doesn't mean they think that the lynching of ordinary criminals awaiting trial is okay... maybe just blacks".

Which is exactly the point Sam Harris is making. We don't go out of our way to justify this with ourselves or really anybody, except Muslims.

I find it interesting. We have a nearly constant stream of information informing us as to how totally messed up the religion of Islam is, and yet some people are worried that the "PC" folks that try to counter it a little by saying more or less, "let's not generalize. Let's not start burning down mosques and inciting violence against random good Muslims." And people start saying oh my God, you PC fools are preventing people from knowing the truth about Islam !

How could anyone have missed knowing how flawed their religion is ? We're in the so called "War on Terror." We are bombarded with far more information about how bad they are, especially the terrorist acts of the fundamentalist extremists, then we are people saying they aren't all bad.

How is having everyone acknowledging how terrible they really are supposed to help the world ?

Is it like this ?

First we shun the entire Islamic world. Basically we send them to their room, without any dinner, to reflect on what kind of people they want to be. In a little while, they will realize we are right, that they have been behaving badly, or their extremists have. And they better get their extremists under control if they want to be able to rejoin the rest of us in the modern world. If not we will relegate them to some very large part of the world where they can be poor and reproduce like crazy,... until ?

Surely that will work.

Emotions are fine, but if it leads to a logical argument, why not think the logic through and see if it actually makes even the slightest bit of sense?

marcus says

folks that try to counter it a little by saying more or less, "let's not generalize. Let's not start burning down mosques and inciting violence against random good Muslims." And people start saying oh my God, you PC fools are preventing people from knowing the truth about Islam !

No, PC folks are like "We gotta bring them over here by the boatload, and soon, by god! Every moment we waste on triage or identifying them, no, bring them here in large numbers as soon as possible! Anything less proves that we are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic evil people!"

marcus says

yet some people are worried that the "PC" folks that try to counter it a little by saying more or less, "let's not generalize. Let's not start burning down mosques and inciting violence against random good Muslims." And people start saying oh my God, you PC fools are preventing people from knowing the truth about Islam !

How could anyone have missed knowing how flawed their religion is ? We're in the so called "War on Terror." We are bombarded with far more information about how bad they are, especially the terrorist acts of the fundamentalist extremists, then we are people saying they aren't all bad.

How is having everyone acknowledging how terrible they really are supposed to help the world ?

The point is precisely not to burn mosques or to blame this person or that one. This is clearly not about Muslims people. It's about ideas.
The point is SIMPLY to make it CLEAR what ideas are ok or not ok, and not accepting ANY COMPROMISE on what is moral or not moral. And unfortunately that means confronting head-on some direct teachings of this religion.

The US reaction to Charlie was typical. Instead of asking muslims to change their beliefs, the main reaction of the white house was something like "let's exercise restraints in the use of free speech so as not to irritate Muslims". In other words the white house called Americans to self-censor and auto-enforce Muslim blasphemy laws - while paying lip service to free speech.
The base strategy seems to be: let's avoid confrontation, let's pretend there is no problem and it will slowly change.

I don't think it will. Bad ideas have power. They spread easily. But they can be defeated by direct discussion.

A battle of idea is a DISCUSSION. If it doesn't happen, then hatred will follow and for sure mosques will be burned.
- we should teach in public schools that these ideas are bad.
- we should have a discussion with mosques in this country to explain why a direct reading is bad and to explicitly and officially condemn a set of base ideas.
- the media should overwhelmingly attack such ideas in every occasion.
- our leaders should explicitly ask muslims to change.

thunderlips11 says

No, PC folks are like "We gotta bring them over here by the boatload, and soon, by god! Every moment we waste on triage or identifying them, no, bring them here in large numbers as soon as possible! Anything less proves that we are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic evil people!"

The question of refuges is even worse. A small elite is trying to shame the people of Europe and the US into accepting millions of refugees, clearly against the will of a majority of people.

marcus says

How could anyone have missed knowing how flawed their religion is ?

it seems our president missed it.

and again, role models are important. the president is a role model, and people repeat what he says.

How is having everyone acknowledging how terrible they really are supposed to help the world ?

you can't fix a problem if you won't admit it exists.

the reason islam requires death for people who disparage it is that free speech is exactly their weak point.

they are very afraid of open rational commentary on the actual nature of islam. that is why we must talk about it. it is our best defense, actually.

this essay is very well done, imho:

http://patrick.net/Islam

it's sympathetic, supposedly by a former muslim himself, lots of actual quotes from the koran, and pleads for muslims to re-join humanity.

you'd get killed for distributing that in saudi.

Is it like this ?

First we shun the entire Islamic world. Basically we send them to their room, without any dinner, to reflect on what kind of people they want to be. In a little while, they will realize we are right, that they have been behaving badly, or their extremists have. And they better get their extremists under control if they want to be able to rejoin the rest of us in the modern world. If not we will relegate them to some very large part of the world where they can be poor and reproduce like crazy,... until ?

Surely that will work.

i don't think isolating them will help them see the true nature of islam, but it will help protect the random innocent civilians that they routinely massacre, and that's the more urgent task, even if it's not the more important task (which is open public statements by everyone on earth simply pointing out and rejecting the violence inherent in islam)

it seems our president missed it.

Why ? Because he shows a little respect for a group of people and a religion that includes over well over 1 billion people ?

You think it would be wise for a President to condemn an entire religion, and indirectly entire countries that affiliate themselves with that religion ?

you can't fix a problem if you won't admit it exists.

Nobody is denying it. Islam takes a huge PR hit, every time something like this last weekend happens. The thing that will kill Islam the fastest is more of that kind of behavior, and the Islamic world, at least the smarter 2/3 of it, knows that well.

this essay is very well done, imho:

http://patrick.net/Islam

Yes, but there's a strong anti Muslim bias there. It's sort of like when an exChristian rails against fundamentalist Christianity. Not that most of what he would say isn't true, but it's a very biased view.

Just like the bible, the Koran can be taken literally by idiotic fundamentalists, or it can be taken as symbolic and metaphorically with some little sections ignored as pertaining to another millenium by moderate practitioners. This can be easily verified by anyone who is interested in doing as you say, their homework.

Here is the type of reading that I find informative and less biased, even if it is complex and doesn't lend itself to simplistic platitudes. If you're looking for something to reinforce your hate, you won't like it.

But you might be able to get something out of it. Maybe not. Maybe it's all all lies and PC nonsense to you.

http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/Islam_and_Terrorism:_a_Humanist_View

I'm going to get a lot of flak because of the source.

Modern Muslim terrorist groups are more rooted in national liberation ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries than they are in the Islamic tradition. Although these terrorist groups adopt various theological justifications for their behavior, their ideologies, symbolism, language and organizational structure reflect the influence of the anti-colonial struggle of the developing world. For instance, the groups often use expressions . . . imported from national liberation struggles against colonialism [which] did not emerge from the Islamic heritage. In short, modern Muslim terrorism is part of the historical legacy of colonialism and not the legacy of Islamic law. According to the Islamic juristic tradition, terrorists would have no quarter.

Heraclitusstudent says

The question of refuges is even worse. A small elite is trying to shame the people of Europe and the US into accepting millions of refugees, clearly against the will of a majority of people.

Great example. Bowling Green, KY gets two Al Qaeda Operatives.

Of the 31 states that have declared their opposition to taking in Syrian refugees, one state, Kentucky, has a specific reason to be wary of the background check process: previously two Iraqi refugees who settled in Bowling Green turned out to be al Qaeda-linked terrorists with the blood of American soldiers on their hands, an ABC News investigation found. Both pleaded guilty to terror-connected charges after trying to acquire heavy weapons while in America’s heartland.

The 2013 ABC News investigation also revealed that several dozen other suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some who were believed to have targeted U.S. troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the U.S. as Iraq and Afghanistan War refugees, among the tens of thousands of innocent immigrants.

The Obama administration insists now that Syrian refugees are subjected to intense vetting before they’re allowed to settle in the U.S. and that a vast majority of the millions of refugees the U.S. has resettled since the 1970s are normal, peaceful people, but the program has had serious security problems before. In 2009, a flaw in background screening of Iraqi refugees allowed the two al Qaeda-linked terrorists to settle in Bowling Green

The two men, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, were caught on surveillance video in 2010 in a storage locker in Kentucky handling heavy weapons, including a Russian-made machine gun and a Stinger missile launcher, which the FBI said the men thought would be smuggled to insurgents in Iraq.

An FBI agent assigned to the sting operation that eventually nabbed Alwan and Hammadi told ABC News for its original report that Alwan had bragged to an informant about killing American soldiers in Iraq.

"He said he had them 'for lunch and dinner,'" FBI Louisville Supervisory Special Agent Tim Beam told ABC News in 2013.

Quick! Quick! We gotta get them in or it'll be a humanitarian disaster. No time to worry about IDs and vetting. Hurry, for humanity's sake, as many as possible, as fast as possible, or we're homophobe racist monsters!

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes, I have seen plenty. Even today I saw someone on FB saying France caused the attack by bombing Isis.

I've seen the same kind of self flagellation with the Charlie attack: "they looked for it".

This was the same as after 9/11--Noam Chomsky, et al, were thrilled.

By the way, US Refugee Tsar did not know Tzarnev brothers were refugees.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/01/u-s-refugee-chief-didnt-know-boston-bombers-were-refugees/

Osho was an elightened master and he has given discourses on verses of enlightened masters from all over the world. He was such a learned man , he gave discourses on Ikkyu ( enlightened master from Japan) , Gurdjieff ( from Germany )......He literally spoke on everyone but He did't speak on Koran

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=155819433

I think , There needs to be a debate and some of the very belief system needs to be openly discussed .

bgamall4 says

They didn't kill anyone. You know that.

You only have scratched the surface of the plot, Gary.

I say no more. I've already provided you with too much information.

bgamall4 says

now we find out France may impose free speech limitations on people speaking about conspiracies, but of course you will still get to insult Allah.

The policies of France on the matter are patently stupid. They imposed free speech limits already (terrorist apology) following terrorist attacks on free speech.

marcus says

Just like the bible, the Koran can be taken literally by idiotic fundamentalists, or it can be taken as symbolic and metaphorically

Except a large share of Muslims do insist in taking this literally.
You are right they don't have to. And they must be persuaded not to.
Someone has to talk to them, and tell them "Look this is evil, what you are doing is evil, and the rules that led you there are medieval sadism. Give it up."
We are not doing that.

marcus says

Islam takes a huge PR hit, every time something like this last weekend happens. The thing that will kill Islam the fastest is more of that kind of behavior, and the Islamic world, at least the smarter 2/3 of it, knows that well.

No it won't. It's a PR hit in the west only. Most Muslims think it is ok, and many rejoice. As Harris is saying, horror pictures from ISIS are used as recruitment tools.
You assume everyone thinks like you. They don't. .

marcus says

Why ? Because he shows a little respect for a group of people and a religion that includes over well over 1 billion people ?

You think it would be wise for a President to condemn an entire religion, and indirectly entire countries that affiliate themselves with that religion ?

This is where you need to separate the people from the ideas. You need to say "these acts are evil. The beliefs that led to these acts are obvious evil, for any man of good faith. Muslim needs to consider why they insist in believing in such rules as part of a spiritual path."

It would be very easy for Obama to pick out the most egregious acts done in the name of Islam and denounce them in that kind of terms.

marcus says

In short, modern Muslim terrorism is part of the historical legacy of colonialism and not the legacy of Islamic law.

muslim terrorism is not part of the historical legacy of muslim terrorism?

instead the west is to blame for guys yelling allahu akbar and machinegunning civilians?

they might be mad you're trying to let the west take credit when they worked so hard to kill those people.

marcus says

Nobody is denying it.

they are all denying it.

name one mainstream media source that admits islam is directly responsible for islamic terrorism.

Strategist says

What good is Islam?????

It keeps birth rate up.

The fundamental problem we face today in Western modern society is the collapse of human fertility. If this demographic trend continues, we are doomed just like late Roman secularists (including Hypatia) were doomed by the early Christians, by sheer numbers as each generation of early Christians far out-reproduced the secularists. The Dark Age followed after the religious zealots took over.

If during the month of 150 deaths in France, Isis can cause the deaths of 15,000 muslims in the same month in the middleast via their instigation of the internecine wars there, and suck 1500 French muslims to the middleast to be legally droned to death there instead of converting more French women to Islam, it may well be an institution worthy of clandestine funding.

The fundamental solution to the problem has to be a demographic solution: how to encourage western women to produce more children born into surroundings where they can be raised in rational non-violent fashion, with constant attention from parents when toddler then shown proper role models of diligent work ethics by their parents as they enter pre-teen and teenage years, so they can grow up to be rational independent adults, not fearful of risks, not afflicted with the superstitions of power (whether in the name of "god" or "government").

One solution is a 10% tax credit for every child in the household (i.e. 10% reduction in total tax due for every child; 5 children and your total tax liability is cut in half, as your family is raising the next generation for the society), combined with mandatory birth control for receiving any welfare, applied to all welfare recipients native or immigrant. That would quickly optimize the next generation towards a more productive demographic, instead of the current nightmarish breeding of dependent population subsidized by taxes and public borrowing.

bgamall4 says

How did the French Jews know that there would be an imminent attack on Friday Morning of the attack?

I have a lot of questions.

Well France is at fault. Netanyahu did warn them a year ago...
http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-netanyahu-warns-of-grave-mistake-if-france-recognises-palestine-2014-11

thunderlips11 says

Missing the point. If 35% of Southerners thought Lynchings were okay, you wouldn't be saying

"Well, that doesn't mean they think that the lynching of ordinary criminals awaiting trial is okay... maybe just blacks".

Which is exactly the point Sam Harris is making. We don't go out of our way to justify this with ourselves or really anybody, except Muslims.

That's stupid. I'm not going out of my way to justify.

But when you have 3 words allocated for a statistic, it's worth thinking about what it means.

I actually think that the fact that 65% say suicide bombing in NEVER justified is a good number, and I'm not at that surprised that 35% think it's ever justified.

Not defending it. Just saying it doesn't make me thinki Muslims are more violent than I thought they were, in fact it supports the idea that they are less violent than you and Patrick think they are. That is if most of the 35% that think it is ever justified are thinking of Palestinians.

Apparently you missed the point.

they are all denying it.

name one mainstream media source that admits islam is directly responsible for islamic terrorism.

You are so full of it Patrick. They are known by all as radical Islamic terrorists. I've never NEVER heard the Islamic part denied.

Sure some say that the Islam part isn't the cause in a vacuum, and anyone who is not retarded knows this to be true.

Heraclitusstudent says

Someone has to talk to them, and tell them "Look this is evil, what you are doing is evil, and the rules that led you there are medieval sadism. Give it up."

We are not doing that.

Everyone agree that that has to come from their own communities. And everyone agrees it has to happen more than it does, But it does happen. With a little searching you can find the list of Islamic clerics and Islamic government leaders that condemn these acts.

And only someone with severe cognitive deficits would not understand the degree to which this is a direct hit to Islam.

It's not intellectuals that are crying out that Islam must be blamed, it's fucking everyone !

The loudest are going to be the right wingers, and the uneducated, that can't handle complexity, which is why I'm surprised to hear Patrick taking such a simplistic view.

But also he and T-lips are kind of fighting a wierd straw man, because it's not like I don't agree with a big part of what they are saying. It's just that I'm also looking at the bigger picture, and understanding there is not an easy solution to this. And my point is that, not only are fear and hate not a solution, if fear and hate is all we've got, it could make the problem worse.

marcus says

You are so full of it Patrick. They are known by all as radical Islamic terrorists. I've never NEVER heard the Islamic part denied.

i'm sorry to say you're also full of it marcus.

the president ALWAYS says "these people are not true muslims" or some bullshit like that.

the president ALWAYS says "these people are not true muslims" or some bullshit like that.

He's right. There's far more difference between the beliefs of different Muslim groups than there are between say Unity Christian church and radical Baptists. Most true muslims do not agree with the terrorists. You can split hairs, over irrelevant semantics, but what Obama means is that the terrorists don't represent the typical Muslim, and that is undeniably true.

Heraclitusstudent says

Talking of Pew:

Look at the percentages that say suicide bombing is never justified.

What is it exactly that you want ? And please describe how even in some fantasy world what you would want would help.

Also please consider how it might harm, by inciting violence against innocent Muslims.

marcus says

the president ALWAYS says "these people are not true muslims" or some bullshit like that.

He's right.

wait, you just ignored the point where you said you NEVER heard the islamic part denied.

and i pointed out you're just making up bullshit, because the president ALWAYS says that islamic terrorists are not islamic.

and you ignored my calling out your bullshit.

and we're not splitting hairs here. islam explicitly and repeatedly calls for violence against non-believers.