The Koran -- Serious business.

[Beckwin]

I don't ever remember a christian in America killing someone over the tearing of a book.

yeah it was pretty much less than that; just wearing a turban.

[Beckwin]

Actually, I don't... maybe you could provide some sources.

The part that bothers me is the lack of assistance from the "police" just watching this crap go down.
Either way, killing folks over books is about as stupid as humanity gets.

Balbir Singh Sodhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[quannum]

I have always (read other redundant threads like this) stated that Islam plays a role but is not the source in a meaningful sense.

I think the problems in the ME are mainly due to geopolitics - land and resources (like most wars throughout history).

the problem with this is that people really do think that defiling a koran should be punishable by death.

the 911 hijackers, one of whom got his graduate degree in hamburg, germany, realldy did believe they were getting 72 virgins for doing allah's work.

i'm not disputing the geopolitics plays a part, i'm just saying no one is being killed for throwing harry potter books in the toilet or w/e.

[Elvis]

Religious fanaticism exists. I do not dispute that.

If the point of contention is simply whether it exists - then I have no dispute w/ what you said.

If you're switching gears and saying 'Islam is the problem' - I think you're being shallow.

If you're saying that the educated Muslim chose to blah blah blah because of 72 virgins - well, I want a source. From what I've read the entire notion of 72 virgins and paradise in Islam has been misconstrued.

But of course, that's not really your point and I understand that. You are saying they were motivated purely by their religion.

However, there are Muslims who aren't doing what those guys did. There are lots of Muslims being killed by those guys.

How do you reconcile that fact? If a Muslim denounces Islamic terrorism, does that mean he's not really a Muslim?

How do you know that there is only one way to interpret Islam? (This is what is being insinuated unless like I stated above - your argument is that Islam plays a role but is not THE end all source of the shenanigans. That's something I'd agree with.)

[Neosutra]

There are alcoholics that dont beat their wives, are they not really alcoholics?

[quannum]

for me, it's more like making a cake, a burn the infidels cake. of all the ingredients, religion is a necessary one, like eggs or something. it's not a finishing touch, like the frosting.

in this situation, yes islam is the problem. generically, islam/religion is a problem. just to distance this from my above statement, i'm not saying it's always a main/motivating factor.

[Elvis]

There are alcoholics that dont beat their wives, are they not really alcoholics?

I find that parallel to be obscene. I reject the premise, but I'll respond to it in a purely rhetorical fashion.

Again, you have a reading comprehension problem.

An alcoholic can beat their spouse due to alcoholism.
There are alcoholics who do not beat their spouses (if they have one).

A Muslim can fly a plane into a building due to their interpretation of their faith.

A Muslim can reject the Muslim who flies a plane into a building due to their interpretation of their faith.

Both Muslims - but 2 different interpretations.

You're comparing an alcoholic to a Muslim. Do all Muslims function like alcoholics?

If a Muslim believes that terrorism is wrong is he lying?

Like I already said - you are simply straw manning an entire people and religion (you say nothing of Indonesian Muslims - as far as I know, Asian Muslims are the MAJORITY of Muslims).

All Muslims are the same to you.

[Plow]

for me, it's more like making a cake, a burn the infidels cake. of all the ingredients, religion is a necessary one, like eggs or something. it's not a finishing touch, like the frosting.

If anything, hatred is the flour, religious hatred is like wheat flour.


Not even going to get into the 2nd part of that post.

[Neosutra]

All Muslims are not the same to me. I am simply sticking with the "religion is inherently bad" argument, in which case the alcoholism analogy does relate as a degenerative psychosis that may or may not cause severe extremist acts.

I dont think the "moderate" Muslim in central India that believes women are less worthy than men is any better than the "extremist" that kills an entire village (at least as far as examining the negative effects of their religion). Both are just examples of what a perverse ideology can do to a culture and people. The people that attacked this colony were just "allowed" to go one step farther. Those "moderates" in other parts of the world would do the same thing if they were placed in that area. It isnt Islam that is holding these "moderates" back, it is the society these moderates live in that keep them from extremist acts.

[kareface]

I find that parallel to be obscene. I reject the premise, but I'll respond to it in a purely rhetorical fashion.

Again, you have a reading comprehension problem.

An alcoholic can beat their spouse due to alcoholism.
There are alcoholics who do not beat their spouses (if they have one).

A Muslim can fly a plane into a building due to their interpretation of their faith.

A Muslims can reject the Muslim who flies a plane into a building due to their interpretation of their faith.

Both Muslims - but 2 different interpretations.

You're comparing an alcoholic to a Muslim. Do all Muslims function like alcoholics?

If a Muslim believes that terrorism is wrong is he lying?

Like I already said - you are simply straw manning an entire people and religion (you say nothing of Indonesian Muslims - as far as I know, Asian Muslims are the MAJORITY of Muslims).

All Muslims are the same to you.

Why don't we just teach that anything that requires faith is not something worth believing in. That way we don't have to worry about people misinterpreting an imaginary creatures words.

[ZarakiKujata]

Sascha Baron Cohen is an Orthodox Jew and Zionist.

Where are you getting that he is an Orthodox Jew and/or Zionist?

He almost gets stoned on tape in Bruno by Orthodox Jews who are also likely Zionists that threatened by his homosexuality. I doubt he would be making fun of his own religion's ignorance and homophobia as the first part of his visit to Israel if he were really a zionist/orthodox jew. As an example, Religulous, purposefully didn't show Judaic fundamentalism as being West Bank settlers, but rather an orthodox Rabbi who is so anti-zionist he doesn't think Israel should exist thus showing Bill Maher's own zionist tendencies....

Also this isn't 15 pages.... you guys fucking fail.

[ZarakiKujata]

Like I already said - you are simply straw manning an entire people and religion (you say nothing of Indonesian Muslims - as far as I know, Asian Muslims are the MAJORITY of Muslims).

All Muslims are the same to you.

A significant number if not most Muslims do not actually speak or read Arabic and have as such never actually read the Koran and arguably do not understand it.

[kuronosan]

I am disappoint.

[Elvis]

Where are you getting that he is an Orthodox Jew and/or Zionist?

He almost gets stoned on tape in Bruno by Orthodox Jews who are also likely Zionists that threatened by his homosexuality. I doubt he would be making fun of his own religion's ignorance and homophobia as the first part of his visit to Israel if he were really a zionist/orthodox jew. As an example, Religulous, purposefully didn't show Judaic fundamentalism as being West Bank settlers, but rather an orthodox Rabbi who is so anti-zionist he doesn't think Israel should exist thus showing Bill Maher's own zionist tendencies....

Also this isn't 15 pages.... you guys fucking fail.

He is an Orthodox Jew. He was raised as such. He had some problems w/ his fiancee (Isla Fisher) just before they got married. Nothing serious but he wouldn't marry her until she converted to Judaism.

Sacha Baron Cohen's Mom is Pissed | Jewcy.com

He is also a Zionist. Do Zionists have a card they all carry? No, but you can infer as much by observation (reading about/watching/etc.).

Read the 2 articles I posted or watch the video. He blatantly lied about the Palestinian man in 'Bruno'. The guy was not a Muslim (he was Christian) and was not a terrorist.

Furthermore, one of the articles (or perhaps it was the video) states that the charges against the man were dropped or never filed. This is a regular occurrence in the Israel-Palestine conflict. I could refer you to a study done by an Israeli NGO and blah blah but that would be a huge digression.

Other lies exist like how the meeting place between Cohen (in character as Bruno) and the Palestinian man, was a dangerous affair and that the Palestinian man had a bodyguard.

Total bullshit. The 'bodyguard' was really a friend and journalist. The location was a hotel or restaurant (don't remember which) in an area in the West Bank that was under FULL Israeli military control.

So why all the lies? Because that's how he gets his jokes. It's not simply his character - it's how he contrives the interaction between his character and real people.

He has had trouble with others before as well. I liked Borat but when I think about it (and sometimes thinking about it causes problems and you end up not enjoying the lulz) - he's a real jerk.

I should have focused in on my overall point about Cohen - that he 'weaponizes' Judaism. He goes to great lengths in Borat for example to showcase his character's antisemitism. He then portrays a Jewish couple who run a bread n' breakfast as saints. BTW - I think they probably were saints, but I use the word "portray" to convey the editing tricks and 'storyline' he used.

Minorities often ingratiate themselves into societies like the US with comedy in an effort to assimilate or bridge the gap between communities.

In this context, a bit of racism and bigotry (Russel Peters for example) is not a bad thing. It's not racism w/ malicious intent. So in a Russel Peters gig you'll commonly find on YouTube - he says Indians are cheap. I can confirm that...

He says this in an innocent way though. He's trying to humanize Indians by applying to them characteristics that can be seen in other peoples'.

In other ways, it's purely to ingratiate him and his group w/ the majority (which would include other minorities).

For example, there was a very funny spin on Cribs by an Arab comedian. He spoke like a FOB and just by the way he portrayed himself - you knew he was going for the same kind of laugh that Russel Peters was going for w/ the 'Indians are cheap' bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqqKtqdrh7g

I don't quite like this style of comedy when it comes to Arabs and Muslims because I feel like their world is under attack and that they are constantly being asked to stand trial for extremist elements in their original societies. Meanwhile, I feel at the same time there is little meaningful retrospection on our part - in the mainstream - to ascertain what WE have done wrongly in the ME.

Back to Cohen. I should say I believe he is a 'tribal Jew' rather than an Orthodox Jew. I was not being abstract in the case of the latter term. My source is Jewcy (a youthful secular Jewish American website aimed at...Jewish Americans - hence the name). I also read on Wiki that he was raised in an Orthodox household.

I say he's a Zionist for the reasons I mentioned. He went to great lengths to lie about that Palestinian man. That could be the usual showbiz douchebaggery but I doubt it - I feel like it's part of a pattern of behavior.

When you look at the context of Cohen's 'targets' - they are usually messed up or unfashionable people.

The yuppie Southern racist, sexist, idiotic frat boys. The obese fat black escort. The blonde bimbo actress. The uppity Southern Christian house-guests and etiquette coach. The Southern (pattern) cowboy culture in general was lampooned.

Now - there is collusion here. Those frat boys were racist and obnoxious. Those cowboys at the rodeo or whatever were as well.

But he also included the Palestinian man in this same type of lampooning. Why? I mean, if he really was as bad as Bruno painted him - I would find the bit agreeable (yet still obnoxious). However, he lied about the guy - to great lengths.

This was as bad as Bill Maher picking Neuterai Karta. BTW - I do not support that group. I think they're supportive of the Palestinian cause purely for arbitrary religious reasons and not moralistic reasons.

EDIT:

The charges against the Palestinian man were never proven as per the Sky News video.

[Elvis]

A significant number if not most Muslims do not actually speak or read Arabic and have as such never actually read the Koran and arguably do not understand it.

Source?

[Arvin]

I don't speak or read arabic, and I've never read the Koran and I don't understand it.

There you go, there's 1.

[Elvis]

Compelling and rich.

[Correction]

Compelling and rich.

I think Arv has this tattooed on his chest.

[ZarakiKujata]

Source?

I have no specific source for the fact, but the larger argument about lack of Arabic reading ability and its influence on the misconception amongst Muslims that Islam is a religion of peace because they can not read the Koran is mainly from Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

But if you look at Most Widely Spoken Languages that cites numerous surveys of languages around the world. Through numerous surveys Arabic has somewhere between 160-200 million native speakers. One of the surveys also counts secondary speakers which it measures as ~21 million for Arabic. Thus according to this particular survey 221 million people can speak Arabic. Now, speaking =/= literacy or ability to read the Koran as it is in a much older dialect from what is spoken today. So the actual # of readers would probably be a little lower due to low literacy rates in arabic countries, amongst people for whom its a second language, etc. But keeping with that 160-221million range for simplicities sake that leaves ~800 million of the 1 billion Muslims of the world that can't speak/read Arabic?

As for how this applies to the Koran, in many Muslim countries its taught entirely in Arabic, and rarely are students taught to engage the text in a meaningful way beyond memorization. (Coming from Infidel and numerous Economist/Foreign Policy articles on the origins of the Taliban/Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan/Afghanistan.)

Thus when you combine a lack of linguistic understanding of the text's language and rote memorization over critical understanding, its safe to say that many Muslim's don't understand/have never read the Koran. (Spurious argument at best on my part atm but its argued much better by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose own personal history in madrassahs, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Kenya , gives much better support to the argument.)

As to SBC, I couldn't actually watch the video because I'm at the library but I was unaware that he was orthodox. I knew he had lied about the guy from weeks ago when the guy said he was gonna sue SBC, but I take that more as him twisting the truth to suit the 'plot' of his movies, much as how he hires porn actors for much of the nudity in his movies. As well, the point of the anti-Semitism of Borat was in my mind to remove the venom from its fangs, by openly mocking it by making it as outlandish as possible, and then showing how sweet that Jewish couple was (I'm sure so much of that scene was staged its not even funny btw.)

I'm kind of picking and choosing what to reply to because I really shouldnt be procrastinating on BG atm but the black escort is also a planted actress, and really everything in SBC's movies should be viewed with a grain of salt because its clear there are very few scenes that are entirely spontaneous/not at least partially staged Pam Anderson's kidnapping, black baby etc.

[Elvis]

I doubt every Christian is a Christian scholar. Same w/ every other religion.

I don't know the true meaning of Islam - or at least, I do not have a scholarly opinion of Islam. No one else on this forum does either. We're all focusing on rhetoric mostly and common sense. However, I think that works still.

If we had some more learned Muslims on this forum (has Firas ever dropped some knowledge?) then maybe the debate would shift from the usual back and forth to a meaningful analysis of the text and it's meaning.

That you can find on your own online and blah blah. I see you've already done that though by reading or watching material from Hirsi-Ali.

You should look at criticisms of her though. Islamic scholars say she makes 'sweeping generalizations' about Islam. This doesn't mean she's absolutely wrong 100% but I'm very skeptical.

There are a lot of "ex" Muslims who go on to support Zionism and the War on Terror. The majority of the civilian population in Iraq/Afghanistan do not want us there so I juxtapose these "ex" Muslims' opinions next to that of the people who are being inflicted w/ "freedom". After all, it is they and not people like Walid Shoebat or Hirsi-Ali, who are dealing with the brunt of the War on Terror now.

You'll often see these people as 'experts' on Fox News or conservative radio shows. They are also invited by Zionist advocacy groups to give talks on terrorism and Islam.

I'll have to read up on the literacy thing. That's interesting - I do not know much about it. I've seen a debate between a Hirsi-Ali-like persona - Irshad Manji - and the Senior Analyst and Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, Dalia Mogahed - and the latter's argument seemed much more compelling. Again, that's superficial but it's a piece of information to add to your formation of a substantial argument (which you lack - like me and most other people here).

Irshad Manji and Dalia Mogahed - Who Speaks for Islam?

(If I may interject: Moderated by Zionist, Jeffrey Goldberg - cheerleader for the Iraq War - and now Iran - before it became a disaster.)

The debate is from the 2008 Aspen Ideas Festival. Their website: http://www.aifestival.org/

EDIT:

I agree with you overall though about the impact of illiteracy on interpretation of the Quran.

EDIT2:

Reread your post more closely. I don't know how I'd characterize Islam as a 'religion of peace'. I wouldn't characterize any of the three big religions that way. I'm mostly focusing on the culture and geopolitical blah blah when comparing Islam here with Islam there and all that. So I'll bring up the differences between sects and also between location. Indonesian society is not the same as Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is not the same as Iraq (before destruction).

So is the argument by the writer you mentioned that Islam is a violent religion and because those people who become extremists cannot read (and thus cannot understand...)...they become Islamic terrorists? Seems kind of illogical. (I probably misunderstood what you meant.)