The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom 303 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    cofty

    On The Mechanics of Defamation...

    No matter how completely opposed I may have been to another person’s views, I have not behaved like that. I have never knowingly distorted the positions I criticize, whether they are the doctrines of a religion or the personal beliefs of Francis Collins, Eben Alexander, Deepak Chopra, Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald, or any other writer or public figure with whom I’ve collided. The crucial boundary between hard-hitting criticism and defamation is knowing that you are misrepresenting your target. 

  • Simon
    Simon

    Yes, I wouldn't go off Reza Aslan's description of Sam Harris - it's a pleasure to hear him speak his own ideas in a very articulate and respectful but forceful way.

    Reza is a weasel by comparison. He just tells people what's popular depending on who he's talking to.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Sam Harris Responds.

    This is not a "fundamentalist". This is somebody who is led by the evidence and who refuses to pander to political correctness.

    ...

  • TerryWalstrom
    TerryWalstrom

    Cofty, you and I didn't listen to the same video--did we?

    Did you listen all the way through to the end?

    I think Aslan understands Harris better than Harris understands Islam.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Aslan takes a pro position to the Islamic faith because he is a practicing Muslim, Harris on the other hand just points the egregious evil written in the Quran and how some Muslims use those holy scriptures to empower themselves by means of violence and as a means to show how spiritually devoted to Allah they are.

    Harris points that most of the barbaric violence being orchestrated by Islamic extremists comes from the directives written in the Quran itself, essentially making barbarism a socially sanctioned behavior and duly supported.


  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    Harris points that most of the barbaric violence being orchestrated by Islamic extremists comes from the directives written in the Quran itself, essentially making barbarism a socially sanctioned behavior and duly supported.


    The problem with this is that anyone lightly educated about and familiar with Quranic verse knows that it does not do this at all. The radical ideology formed by terrorist groups is not from the Quran anymore than the teachings of the Carholic Church are from the bible. The origin of such practice and belief is solely the leading individual, not the Quran. As has been pointed out by some who have been held captive by Isis and freed, ISIS soldiers and captors don't even possess a Quran.

    I do have the book, and can provide countless verses against all violence except in defense - defense which is also regulated by stating emphatically that being unnecessarily violent, up to and including taking a life, will yield condemnation from God.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    So the what your saying then JD is that killing of infidels and beheading them if need be is not written in the Quran and the vanquishing of apostate opposers even to those who do not follow exactly to Islamic fundamentalism,  all of that is not written in the Quran and the select extremists are not using those written words as directive toward their behavior ?  ........ Really ???

    I think you need to read the Quran a little more closely. JD

    This is another interesting debate between Harris and  Aslan.

    Harris here goes on to explain how even modern Hebrews do not emulate certain scriptural directives written in the Torah.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKjcvZoxT9Q


  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    The mistake that is likely being made by Harris, as well as many others in western culture, is failure to take into account the events around which the Quran was being taught. Also, please forgive me, I haven't watched the video you posted yet but I will when I get time later today. 

    During the time the Quran was being spoken by Muhammed (it wasn't written down for a very long time- originally an oral teaching) was a time of upheaval. Followers of Muhammed were being persecuted by Judaism as well as the surrounding people who were neither Christian nor Jew (the "Pagans"). Muhammed had formed peace treaties with some, and in particular the Meccans. The Meccans, however, broke this treatise time and again, attacking Muslims while on their pilgrimages and otherwise just in general. Regarding this specific issue, you find verses such as this:

     "They ask you, Prophet, about crescent moons. Say, 'They show the times appointed for people, and for the pilgrimage.' Goodness does not consist of entering houses by the back door; the truly good person is one who is mindful of God. So enter your houses by the main doors and be mindful of God so that you may prosper. Fight in God's cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits. Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious that killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them - this is what such disbelievers deserve- but if they stop, then God is most forgiving and merciful." 2:189-192

    There are many who take these verses out of context to say the Quran is proscribing violence. However, if one is willing to read it honestly, it is clearly not the case. What is being proscribed is self defense, and highly restrictive self defense so as not to overstep limits, I.e., be unnecessarily violent. The issue at hand was the persecuting Meccans were attacking Muslims while on pilgrammage. Pilgrammage was a holy time, and the Muslims weren't fighting back and getting killed or taken captive from fear of muddying their service to God. So these rules were given proscribing restrictive self defense, where they could only kill if necessary (others are trying to kill them), and they were to stop immediately if the assailants ceased their oppression AND BE FORGIVING as God is merciful. 

    The Quran does not proscribe these vengeful actions by terrorists because under no circumstance is a Muslim supposed to be on the offense. To do so is condemned in the Quran as a sin which, if left unrepented, will land one in hell whether Muslim or no.

  • cofty
    cofty

    JD - I have read the quran. It spews hatred on every page. Yes there are a handful of texts that can be pressed into service in the name of peace but they are overwhelmingly in the minority.

    The Hadith is even worse.

    If a Muslim takes the liberal view that they are just ancient books and no more than historical curiosity then it isn't a problem. Conservative Muslims who take their faith seriously view them as the very words of god. Look at any society that is influenced by the quran and you will find extreme oppression of women and contempt for kaffir.

    Aslan is dishonest and cares only about Aslan's image. His position that the quran is not behind the atrocities of Islamic terrorism is self-evidently delusional. 

    A more reasonable and realistic perspective on Islam can be found by listening to former Muslim extremist Maajid Nawaz.

  • TerryWalstrom
    TerryWalstrom

    As an analogy . . .

    Right-wing Conservatives see gun violence as isolated incidents by mentally unstable persons, RATHER THAN an indictment of all gun-owners. In fact, they get very pissed off when Liberals make that connection.

    This assigning of total culpability to an entire group is just another manifestation of the Muslim/terrorist issue, according to Aslan.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit