Reza Aslan absolutely destroys CNN and Bill Maher on Muslim violence

[ElectionsGuy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw

Eat it, CNN. They just can't take it after he gives too many facts and not enough generalizations to feed the Islam-phobia propaganda. I love it.

(We can move this to International Board if that fits better)

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Reza Aslan is annoying, CNN is terribad, and Mahrer is the worst.

[bedstuy]

I think he's right about a few points, but ultimately, pretty misleading.  It's true on one hand that there are plenty of nice, progressive Muslim people and there are secular Muslim countries.  And, sure, Bill Maher is not an expert on Islam or the world outside America.  I suppose that's an important point to make for balance, especially when some people are bigoted and hate Muslims in America.

But, I think you can say that Islamic ideology fosters and promotes these major problems like terrorism and disrespect for women's rights.  Islam is not a progressive religion.  By that I mean, Islam is a set of rules for every facet of life and those rules do not change.  Islam is a religion, but it also contains a set of cultural norms that date to the early middle ages in Arabia.  Is there dispute about those rules?  Sure.  Many Muslims believe music is allowed.  Many Muslims believe that women should be allowed to travel alone.  But, the general attitude is that these rules are not debatable or permissive if you find a clear statement from the Islamic scriptures.  In that way, Islam more resembles Christianity in Europe before the reformation democratized Christianity with vernacular texts. 

Once you create that baseline, that you have a book with the perfect revealed truth on how to live your life in every facet, it's inherently at odds with these Western values that Resa Aslan supports like feminism and human rights.  While it's true that some people reconcile Islam with our values, but that's more about those people becoming secular than it is about Islam embracing equality for women or whatever.  Turkey's more modern progressive policies are all about how Turkey became a secular country, not about Islam at all.   

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

+50 to Reza Aslan

[Indy Texas]

Islam is not a progressive religion.  By that I mean, Islam is a set of rules for every facet of life and those rules do not change.  Islam is a religion, but it also contains a set of cultural norms that date to the early middle ages in Arabia.  Is there dispute about those rules?  Sure.  Many Muslims believe music is allowed.  Many Muslims believe that women should be allowed to travel alone.  But, the general attitude is that these rules are not debatable or permissive if you find a clear statement from the Islamic scriptures.  In that way, Islam more resembles Christianity in Europe before the reformation democratized Christianity with vernacular texts. 

Basically. I think there's inherently some tension between Western liberals who want to be pluralistic and respectful of other cultures, and the fact that in its current form, Islam is not compatible with Western liberalism.

You can be a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay Christian. There are Christian denominations like the Episcopal Church and United Churches of Christ that formally accept and accommodate socially progressive and theologically liberal viewpoints.

You can't be a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay Muslim. There is no sect of Islam that formally accepts those sort of modern, Western values. If you are a Muslim and consider yourself a liberal, I'd argue that you're not a very good Muslim and you need to find a different religion to be a part of. I have Muslim friends and acquaintances who drink alcohol, eat pork products, and generally heed a 21st century, post-modernist view on most social issues. But if they were to go to their mosque and be upfront about these things, they'd get taken to task by the religious elders and by members of the congregation. By comparison, there are churches and synagogues that Christians and Jews with comparable lifestyles can go to and not be reprimanded.

I tend to think that if American Muslims want to put the phobia and bigotry to rest for good, they might have to just have a "schism" of their own and form a new sect of Islam that's more compatible with the society they live in. It would be more forward-thinking on social issues and not interpret the Koran literally. Men and women would not be segregated during prayers. Women would not be obliged to wear hijab.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Maher is actually one of the least bad members of the TV media.

[ElectionsGuy]

Islam is not a progressive religion.  By that I mean, Islam is a set of rules for every facet of life and those rules do not change.  Islam is a religion, but it also contains a set of cultural norms that date to the early middle ages in Arabia.  Is there dispute about those rules?  Sure.  Many Muslims believe music is allowed.  Many Muslims believe that women should be allowed to travel alone.  But, the general attitude is that these rules are not debatable or permissive if you find a clear statement from the Islamic scriptures.  In that way, Islam more resembles Christianity in Europe before the reformation democratized Christianity with vernacular texts. 

Basically. I think there's inherently some tension between Western liberals who want to be pluralistic and respectful of other cultures, and the fact that in its current form, Islam is not compatible with Western liberalism.

You can be a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay Christian. There are Christian denominations like the Episcopal Church and United Churches of Christ that formally accept and accommodate socially progressive and theologically liberal viewpoints.

You can't be a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay Muslim. There is no sect of Islam that formally accepts those sort of modern, Western values. If you are a Muslim and consider yourself a liberal, I'd argue that you're not a very good Muslim and you need to find a different religion to be a part of. I have Muslim friends and acquaintances who drink alcohol, eat pork products, and generally heed a 21st century, post-modernist view on most social issues. But if they were to go to their mosque and be upfront about these things, they'd get taken to task by the religious elders and by members of the congregation. By comparison, there are churches and synagogues that Christians and Jews with comparable lifestyles can go to and not be reprimanded.

I tend to think that if American Muslims want to put the phobia and bigotry to rest for good, they might have to just have a "schism" of their own and form a new sect of Islam that's more compatible with the society they live in. It would be more forward-thinking on social issues and not interpret the Koran literally. Men and women would not be segregated during prayers. Women would not be obliged to wear hijab.

I absolutely agree with all of this. However, the headline on CNN was "Does Islam Promote Violence?" which is utterly absurd. Being a Muslim requires you live your life in many outdated and reactionary (in a social sense) ways, but violence is only promoted by the fringe minority of lunatics who think their violent acts against society are good in the name of God. Does the ultra religiosity of Islam (that in many areas of the world prohibit progress) make it likelier that religious terrorism will exist? I would say yes. Is it a problem with Islam itself? No.

And I do find Aslan annoying as Sanchez said at times but I think he has it right here.

[Indy Texas]

Islam is not a progressive religion.  By that I mean, Islam is a set of rules for every facet of life and those rules do not change.  Islam is a religion, but it also contains a set of cultural norms that date to the early middle ages in Arabia.  Is there dispute about those rules?  Sure.  Many Muslims believe music is allowed.  Many Muslims believe that women should be allowed to travel alone.  But, the general attitude is that these rules are not debatable or permissive if you find a clear statement from the Islamic scriptures.  In that way, Islam more resembles Christianity in Europe before the reformation democratized Christianity with vernacular texts. 

Basically. I think there's inherently some tension between Western liberals who want to be pluralistic and respectful of other cultures, and the fact that in its current form, Islam is not compatible with Western liberalism.

You can be a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay Christian. There are Christian denominations like the Episcopal Church and United Churches of Christ that formally accept and accommodate socially progressive and theologically liberal viewpoints.

You can't be a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay Muslim. There is no sect of Islam that formally accepts those sort of modern, Western values. If you are a Muslim and consider yourself a liberal, I'd argue that you're not a very good Muslim and you need to find a different religion to be a part of. I have Muslim friends and acquaintances who drink alcohol, eat pork products, and generally heed a 21st century, post-modernist view on most social issues. But if they were to go to their mosque and be upfront about these things, they'd get taken to task by the religious elders and by members of the congregation. By comparison, there are churches and synagogues that Christians and Jews with comparable lifestyles can go to and not be reprimanded.

I tend to think that if American Muslims want to put the phobia and bigotry to rest for good, they might have to just have a "schism" of their own and form a new sect of Islam that's more compatible with the society they live in. It would be more forward-thinking on social issues and not interpret the Koran literally. Men and women would not be segregated during prayers. Women would not be obliged to wear hijab.

I absolutely agree with all of this. However, the headline on CNN was "Does Islam Promote Violence?" which is utterly absurd. Being a Muslim requires you live your life in many outdated and reactionary (in a social sense) ways, but violence is only promoted by the fringe minority of lunatics who think their violent acts against society are good in the name of God. Does the ultra religiosity of Islam (that in many areas of the world prohibit progress) make it likelier that religious terrorism will exist? I would say yes. Is it a problem with Islam itself? No.

And I do find Aslan annoying as Sanchez said at times but I think he has it right here.

If there isn't a problem with Islam itself, why do no other religions have the equivalent of al-Qaeda or ISIS?

[bedstuy]

Here's the disconnect: 

Is Islam necessarily violent?  No.  But, just look at the borders between Suni Islam and other sects.  You have India & Pakistan, Northern Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Iraq, Gaza and the West Bank.  At some point you need to recognize the pattern.  And, the counter-examples don't really disprove the link either.  The places where you don't have Islamic violence are basically all secular strongman regimes where some nationalist group or the military keeps things under control by force.

Sure, Islam doesn't necessarily lead to any specific type of Al Qaeda or ISIS type regime.  But, it is an inherently political ideology with fundamentalist doctrine that resists change and stands in opposition to the pluralist, liberal principles of the West.  People want to deny that because it feels all nice and eccumenical, but it's just a fact about the current state of Islam.

[AggregateDemand]

When the holy warriors and fundamentalists close up shop, and they are no longer funded by moderates and non-religious organizations, then we can say he destroyed CNN and Bill Maher. Until then he's painting an unrealistically positive picture.

Cultures with dominant Islamic influence are generally bastions of human rights abuses and obtuse social restrictions. Women in Saudi Arabia still can't drive.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Islam is not a progressive religion.  By that I mean, Islam is a set of rules for every facet of life and those rules do not change.  Islam is a religion, but it also contains a set of cultural norms that date to the early middle ages in Arabia.  Is there dispute about those rules?  Sure.  Many Muslims believe music is allowed.  Many Muslims believe that women should be allowed to travel alone.  But, the general attitude is that these rules are not debatable or permissive if you find a clear statement from the Islamic scriptures.  In that way, Islam more resembles Christianity in Europe before the reformation democratized Christianity with vernacular texts. 

Basically. I think there's inherently some tension between Western liberals who want to be pluralistic and respectful of other cultures, and the fact that in its current form, Islam is not compatible with Western liberalism.

You can be a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay Christian. There are Christian denominations like the Episcopal Church and United Churches of Christ that formally accept and accommodate socially progressive and theologically liberal viewpoints.

You can't be a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay Muslim. There is no sect of Islam that formally accepts those sort of modern, Western values. If you are a Muslim and consider yourself a liberal, I'd argue that you're not a very good Muslim and you need to find a different religion to be a part of. I have Muslim friends and acquaintances who drink alcohol, eat pork products, and generally heed a 21st century, post-modernist view on most social issues. But if they were to go to their mosque and be upfront about these things, they'd get taken to task by the religious elders and by members of the congregation. By comparison, there are churches and synagogues that Christians and Jews with comparable lifestyles can go to and not be reprimanded.

I tend to think that if American Muslims want to put the phobia and bigotry to rest for good, they might have to just have a "schism" of their own and form a new sect of Islam that's more compatible with the society they live in. It would be more forward-thinking on social issues and not interpret the Koran literally. Men and women would not be segregated during prayers. Women would not be obliged to wear hijab.

I absolutely agree with all of this. However, the headline on CNN was "Does Islam Promote Violence?" which is utterly absurd. Being a Muslim requires you live your life in many outdated and reactionary (in a social sense) ways, but violence is only promoted by the fringe minority of lunatics who think their violent acts against society are good in the name of God. Does the ultra religiosity of Islam (that in many areas of the world prohibit progress) make it likelier that religious terrorism will exist? I would say yes. Is it a problem with Islam itself? No.

And I do find Aslan annoying as Sanchez said at times but I think he has it right here.

If there isn't a problem with Islam itself, why do no other religions have the equivalent of al-Qaeda or ISIS?

The Crusades? The Klan?

[bedstuy]

The Crusades were like 800 years ago dude.  And, nobody is saying that there is no problem with Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist fanaticism today.  It's just that Islamic fanaticism is far, far more prevalent and harmful at the moment, by several orders of magnitude arguably.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

But you're attributing that to being a problem of Islam in and of itself. The vast majority of Muslims are not members of ISIS.

Oh also the Holocaust. Christians did that (although the Nazis had a bit of a weird relationship with the rest of Christianity, much as ISIS does with the rest of Islam).

[bedstuy]

But you're attributing that to being a problem of Islam in and of itself. The vast majority of Muslims are not members of ISIS.

Oh also the Holocaust. Christians did that (although the Nazis had a bit of a weird relationship with the rest of Christianity, much as ISIS does with the rest of Islam).

I explained my position earlier.  Islam is particularly totalistic and fundamentalist and particularly at odds with modernity. 

And, you can't just list things that were done by Christian people.  ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, etc. they don't just happen to be Muslim.  Their entire ideology is attempting to create an Islamic state in exact accordance with the Islamic holy texts.  That is an extreme version of Islam.  Nazism was not an extreme version of Christianity. 

[ElectionsGuy]

Was this thread a bad idea?

[KCDem]

When Bill Maher loses America wins.

Aslan +1

[Indy Texas]

But you're attributing that to being a problem of Islam in and of itself. The vast majority of Muslims are not members of ISIS.

Oh also the Holocaust. Christians did that (although the Nazis had a bit of a weird relationship with the rest of Christianity, much as ISIS does with the rest of Islam).

There's a difference between someone doing something with Islam being their primary motivating factor, and someone who just happens to be Muslim doing something harmful or violent.

I get so tired of people clutching at straws trying to find remotely modern examples of Christian mass-murder and resorting to the KKK and Nazi Germany.

The Klan was a race-based organization. They sought to harm non-whites. If the Klan was acting in the name of Christendom, most of their victims wouldn't have been people who were also Christian and whose religious tenets weren't significantly different. (It wasn't something like Protestants killing/abusing/tormenting Catholics. It was relatively conservative evangelical Protestant white people killing/abusing/tormenting relatively conservative evangelical Protestant black people.)

Nazi Germany's violence, again, was a race-ethnicity-based. The role of Christianity in the Third Reich is mixed. But it's pretty obvious from the way they tried to ape ancient Nordic-Germanic pagan imagery and rituals that they weren't by-the-letter religious fundamentalists. Even the genocidal civil war in Yugoslavia was about ethnicity more than religion.

Notice that with the Islamists, it's the opposite. It's always about religion and nothing but it. The mujahideen in Afghanistan were a pan-ethnic, polyglot movement of Afghans, Arabs, Persians and others working under the banner of Islam. Ethnic, national and linguistic identity had no role. The Islamic State has no interest in pan-Arabism; it welcomes non-Arabs into its ranks and wants to expand its reach beyond the Arabic-speaking world; it, too, is an overtly Islamic movement.

The fact is that there is no comparing the desire of fundamentalist Islamists to unite "the Muslim World" against the collective mass of non-Muslims. No one ever speaks of "the Christian World." To the extent that politicized fundamentalist Christianity exists and has existed, it inevitably gets wrapped up in nationalism of some sort and thus by its nature is always localized and limited in scope. There are no Christians calling for other Christians to detonate bombs in non-Christian cities and countries. I haven't heard about any Buddhists or Hindus flying airplanes into buildings or speaking of global religious holy war.

[MaxQue]

Well, I stand by my theory.

The Crusades. Around 1300 years after the beginning of Christianism.
Now. Around 1300 years after the beginning of Islam.

This is the Muslim Crusades.

[Cobbler]

Well, I stand by my theory.

The Crusades. Around 1300 years after the beginning of Christianism.
Now. Around 1300 years after the beginning of Islam.

This is the Muslim Crusades.

This argument is always interesting to me, because it always sounds like an attempt to dismiss the violence as a necessary part of the cycle, just because 800 years ago Christianity was pretty violent. Is your implication that every religion has to go through a Crusade-like period?

I won't go so far as to say that Islam is necessarily violent. But the reality is, it doesn't matter what Christianity (or any other religion) did 800 years ago. If Christians were still calling for holy wars now, it would be just as fair to criticize them for preaching violence. But this is the 21st century, and they aren't.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I get so tired of people clutching at straws trying to find remotely modern examples of Christian mass-murder

The reason for the lack good modern examples is that exterminationist ideologies, whatever their supposed foundation, generally require a sense on the part of their adherents that they ought to be having a better material life now, but someone outside their group is denying them their rightful due and enjoying the benefits that should be theirs.  By and large, Christians today can't really point to another religious group that is doing better than they are, regardless of the reason, so exterminationism isn't going to attract Christians today.

[MaxQue]

Well, I stand by my theory.

The Crusades. Around 1300 years after the beginning of Christianism.
Now. Around 1300 years after the beginning of Islam.

This is the Muslim Crusades.

This argument is always interesting to me, because it always sounds like an attempt to dismiss the violence as a necessary part of the cycle, just because 800 years ago Christianity was pretty violent. Is your implication that every religion has to go through a Crusade-like period?

I won't go so far as to say that Islam is necessarily violent. But the reality is, it doesn't matter what Christianity (or any other religion) did 800 years ago. If Christians were still calling for holy wars now, it would be just as fair to criticize them for preaching violence. But this is the 21st century, and they aren't.

I don't dismiss it and remember than Muslims fought back during Crusades. We must fight back when attacked, but violence in itself won't stop extremism. Arabic World must go through an "Enlightment" period. Religion must be fought by Knowledge.

[bedstuy]

Well, I stand by my theory.

The Crusades. Around 1300 years after the beginning of Christianism.
Now. Around 1300 years after the beginning of Islam.

This is the Muslim Crusades.

What about the period from 7th to 10th century when Islamic armies conquered from Spain to India?  That was also the Muslim Crusades one could argue.

[Cassius]

Was this thread a bad idea?

Yes. It gave me a brain tumour.

[Sbane]

Here's the disconnect: 

Is Islam necessarily violent?  No.  But, just look at the borders between Suni Islam and other sects.  You have India & Pakistan, Northern Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Iraq, Gaza and the West Bank.  At some point you need to recognize the pattern.  And, the counter-examples don't really disprove the link either.  The places where you don't have Islamic violence are basically all secular strongman regimes where some nationalist group or the military keeps things under control by force.

Sure, Islam doesn't necessarily lead to any specific type of Al Qaeda or ISIS type regime.  But, it is an inherently political ideology with fundamentalist doctrine that resists change and stands in opposition to the pluralist, liberal principles of the West.  People want to deny that because it feels all nice and eccumenical, but it's just a fact about the current state of Islam.

Hmm? India is not a Muslim country. And if you meant to compare the Muslims in India vs Pakistan, the divergence is fairly recent and due to Pakistani foreign policy, not sectarian reasons. The spread of Islam in a good chunk of South and Southeast Asia occurred by means the Saudis would consider sacrilegious. For example the Sufi saints who spread Islam through music throughout South Asia, including areas which are now in Pakistan.

I think this is a cultural issue more than a religious issues. The desert cultures of the Middle East are extremely backwards and it's reflected in the type of religion they practice.

[bedstuy]

Here's the disconnect: 

Is Islam necessarily violent?  No.  But, just look at the borders between Suni Islam and other sects.  You have India & Pakistan, Northern Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Iraq, Gaza and the West Bank.  At some point you need to recognize the pattern.  And, the counter-examples don't really disprove the link either.  The places where you don't have Islamic violence are basically all secular strongman regimes where some nationalist group or the military keeps things under control by force.

Sure, Islam doesn't necessarily lead to any specific type of Al Qaeda or ISIS type regime.  But, it is an inherently political ideology with fundamentalist doctrine that resists change and stands in opposition to the pluralist, liberal principles of the West.  People want to deny that because it feels all nice and eccumenical, but it's just a fact about the current state of Islam.

Hmm? India is not a Muslim country. And if you meant to compare the Muslims in India vs Pakistan, the divergence is fairly recent and due to Pakistani foreign policy, not sectarian reasons. The spread of Islam in a good chunk of South and Southeast Asia occurred by means the Saudis would consider sacrilegious. For example the Sufi saints who spread Islam through music throughout South Asia, including areas which are now in Pakistan.

I think this is a cultural issue more than a religious issues. The desert cultures of the Middle East are extremely backwards and it's reflected in the type of religion they practice.

India is a partially Muslim country.  There are more Muslims in India than there are in any country besides Pakistan and Indonesia.  And, you can't say there is no Islamic terrorism in India between the insurgency in Kashmir and the Mumbai attacks.  Obviously, nationalism is a major issue in India and Pakistan too, but religion strife is a factor there. 

And, on top of that, your point is pretty nonsensical.  Islam is a religion largely based on the Arab culture and language.  Islam codifies the Arab culture of the Middle Ages and elevates that lifestyle to unquestionable perfection.  The solution is that Islam needs to change and become less fundamentalist and extreme.