The Koran -- Serious business.

[Elvis]

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.

The persona - whether it be Borat or Bruno - that Cohen takes on is clearly identified as fictional. However, throughout the 'story' I think most people will think the subjects of ridicule are real.

The hooker in Borat was a paid actress? I can see that actually. That does seem more believable than the sexist frat boys or the polite Southerners at the etiquette dinner being actors.

However, these movies are somewhere between mockumentary and 'Andy Kaufmanesque'-sociological-experiment.

Ever see, 'Waiting for Guffman'(sp)? or 'A Mighty Wind'? Or 'This is Spinal Tap'?

There is a clear distinction in the latter films. We know it's all made up. In Borat and Bruno - most of the targets are real people. There is a 'story' going on but it uses these people as props - and in plenty of cases, without their consent or even knowledge.

It's really messed up when I think about it. I mean, he took someone's life story (the Palestinian) - lied about it blatantly, not just in the film but in the promotion of the film, and then got a cheap laugh out of the lie.

In some cases - we can be less empathetic (towards those racist Southerners for example) but the principle still applies that this was very deceitful and coercive. Slanderous.

There have been a series of videos that came out recently by a journalist named Max Blumenthal. He is the son of Sidney Blumenthal (worked for President Clinton). He's of Jewish descent and he covers the Israel-Palestine conflict.

He recently made some videos on attitudes of Israelis and Jews towards the Palestinians.

Now, unlike Cohen - Blumenthal is a journalist. He does not put on a 'character' while doing his thing. He does use editing and injects humor into his work though. I'd put him in the category of 'The Daily Show' - but less aggressive.

He's not Rob Riggle for example.

Here are the videos of his that are pertinent to the discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nv0KcoOXSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze5dbxPO8cU

Enough pissed off people (most likely Zionists) flagged the first video because it reflected badly on them.

Now - I can understand why they would call the first video propaganda.
However, it is much tamer than anything Cohen has done. Cohen constructs the premise with editing and uses his 'character' to deceive the subject.

Blumenthal in the first piece - chose the audience and then did the editing.
However, the editing would not have done that much more damage since the subjects were already inebriated and simply speaking their mind. So the distinction here is that Blumenthal chose a particular audience of Jews who may not be indicative of the attitudes of the majority.

This is the difference between pure fakery with tremendous intellectual dishonesty as the M.O. (Cohen) and similar intellectual dishonesty but w/ sincere intentions (Blumenthal).

Now - as I said, there was a lot of complaints within the organized Jewish community when this first video of Blumenthal's came out.

It's not like those people were paid actors. They were speaking their mind. They were drunk, yuppie, American Jews - probably on a Birthright trip.

It was bad PR.

The second video was much more tame and much more credible.

(There are studies that compare the attitudes of Israelis and Palestinians towards each other. If you want an empirical analysis and blah blah, google for them. Don't rely on these kinds of videos solely. They are simply supplemental [correct word choice, yea?] evidence at best.)

All in all - Blumenthal is far more honest than Cohen. Cohen is tampering with reality to get a laugh. He uses real people but totally fucks them to get the result he wants. Yea, the 'dirty wizard' line was funny and overall - I can see the appeal of the joke (I think it's stupid though) but it was achieved in a very underhanded (and criminal) manner.

[Despain]

I don't understand why anyone takes religion seriously anymore. If anything, history's taught us that religion causes more problems then is worth, but then again, people need some sort of comfort. That's where religion comes in :/

[Milkster]

All religion is, is whose imaginary friend is cooler. This is how I view it. Most people are religious have so many double standards and contradictions in their views that go against their religion that it makes me laugh.

[kuronosan]

If you guys think religion is what's wrong with religion, you clearly underestimate human nature.

[Neosutra]

That doesn't really make sense.

[EternityEnd]

Are you seriously suggesting that religion could exist without humans, Kuro? It isn't Skynet.

[kuronosan]

No, damn it. I'm saying that even without religion people will find something else to disagree over and it will be something they think is worth killing for.

[Beckwin]

the point is, in my mind at least, that religion is a tool to accumulate power and exert oppression, and it's appeal is so strong because it appeals to human ignorance and desire to belong.

now of course there have been other secular/pseudo-religious devices used for similar effect, but I don't think anything has really approached the ease, effectiveness, and longevity of organized religion. basically, religion is like guns: yeah there are other ways of inflicting harm/death without it, but nothing is quite so widespread and abuseable.

[Faris]

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.

hey arvin!

yep lots of muslims from east asia and iran do not "fully" understand arabic.
that is a problem in Muslims. and thats one of the main problems where you get extremists.

lack of understanding, you get a bunch of people who hate westerner governments, do not understand the religion (because of the language) and a guy with a beard comes to them, and says, look look your religion says killing "ABC" people is jihad. and they follow like sheep.

in reality, when we refer to the teaching of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Koran, it never said anything of killing people, and you as a muslim basing those penalties on anyone.

using Islam as a justification to kill, i dont know but i dont see it as Islam's fault. people can twist anything in to their own interest. because its very clear about that issue.

[ZarakiKujata]

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

Christians are as ignorant as anybody, and I think the lack of true understanding about people's own religions causes much needless bs.

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.

I haven't read any criticisms of her yet, just having heard of/read her book a few weeks ago, what's a good place to start?

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.

I wouldn't characterize her as the typical ex-Muslim, nowhere in the book did she seem like she was espousing support for War on Terror/Zionism, but then again when I bought her book on amazon they recommended I buy Glenn Beck's nonsense so then again I may be wrong.. And having looked at some of her quotes on Israel, I wouldn't classify her as what I think a Zionist is, calling out truths about mainstream Israeli society and Fatah being corrupt is pretty spot on. One point I would disagree with is that the Afghani population, not counting some Pushtuns who support the Taliban, generally still support a US presence in the country (if not the government we are keeping in power)and have from the start unlike in Iraq. They don't appreciate the increased number of civilian bombing deaths from how Bush ran the war after we got bogged down in Iraq but they by no means want to go back to Taliban control.

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?

I can not even listen to Irshad Manji seriously because she looks like a skinny version of a high school english teacher I had... but listening to what is being said, just based off what is in Infidel I'd say Ali is closer to being in between these two. There is tons of stuff Dalia said that is straight from the book but other things like genital mutilation being against Islam when Ali offers a better coherent argument about why it continues because it helps uphold Islamic notions.

(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: Aspen Ideas Festival Welcome to Aspen Ideas Festival

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).

I whole heartedly agree that Indonesian society is not the same as Saudi Arabian society, but Saudi Arabian society because of its money is able to shove its views of Islam down the throats of most of the Muslim world for the last ~30 some odd years, so disproportionately all the West sees is their Sunni Wahhabism (which I'm sure is at least partially at fault for the original killings) and not any Shia/Sufism/other schools of Sunni.

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.)

Her argument is closer to what Bill Maher espouses about all religion in Religulous. That most moderates are unaware of what are the tenets of their religion are because they memorize the text and haven't read the Suras in Arabic so they assume that Islam is a religion of peace, which in turn causes liberals/moderates in the West to take their word for it and do so as well. This gives extremists a shield to hide behind saying that the religion isn't the problem, their interpretation is the problem. She is saying that no the religion is the problem because at its core the Koran is a perverted, misogynistic, violent and oppressive document.

And just about to get into the SBC stuff but holy shit I've wasted a lot of time I should have been using for school purposes.. anyways those videos are absolutely hilarious and cement my decision as a secular jew not to go to Brandeis or travel to Israel. Also, its amazes me how I have to be at almost blackout levels of drunkenness before I get that retarded, and I mean in terms of excessive cursing not stupidity content, and yet those Jews aren't very shitfaced and are so stupid when others have been astounded at my ability to have an intelligent conversation whilst blitzed.

[Dimmauk]

hey arvin!

yep lots of muslims from east asia and iran do not "fully" understand arabic.
that is a problem in Muslims. and thats one of the main problems where you get extremists.

lack of understanding, you get a bunch of people who hate westerner governments, do not understand the religion (because of the language) and a guy with a beard comes to them, and says, look look your religion says killing "ABC" people is jihad. and they follow like sheep.

in reality, when we refer to the teaching of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Koran, it never said anything of killing people, and you as a muslim basing those penalties on anyone.

using Islam as a justification to kill, i dont know but i dont see it as Islam's fault. people can twist anything in to their own interest. because its very clear about that issue.

You can say the same exact things about other religions too. You have to blame the people abusing religion and the sheep that follow it. People are been using religions for their own goals since.....well since that religion was invented. Wasn't religion invented for this purpose? To control the masses?

[Elvis]

I think I might check out Hirsi-Ali's book myself.

About the Christian comment. Let me clarify myself there (I think it looks like a superficial parallel unless I do so) by saying people can be literate and educated and still come to messed up conclusions about their religion. (Wasn't trying to dismiss your argument.)

I'd agree w/ you about her comments on the PA or Fatah and elements of the Palestinian society being corrupt/oppressed by Islamic fundamentalism.

There was an old book by an Egyptian Islamic scholar that dealt with a lot of the stuff we're talking about now that I came across awhile ago while looking at a blog on I-P (not Mondoweiss). I can't recall the name though. I'll try to dig it up.

I can't stand Irshad Manji in general. She reminds me of my public speaking teacher, Freshman year in college... very smug.

I'm going to start with this book though by the speaker I mentioned (Dalia Mogahed) :

Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think

Overall though, I have to admit I'm not sure where to 'start' but I guess this is all a start. I want to read the Quran and I actually bought one...but I keep putting it off.

[Mizango]

anyone fucks with you, you tell me buddy, i'll hagun them to death.

Bookmarked. Just in case I have to call this one in lol.

[Faris]

I think I might check out Hirsi-Ali's book myself.


Overall though, I have to admit I'm not sure where to 'start' but I guess this is all a start. I want to read the Quran and I actually bought one...but I keep putting it off.

hirsi-ali is as bad as those extremists....she was oppressed by her somali family, and she's taking it out on islam.


this video is from a person who was a christian preacher and a academic in mathematics and something else, i forgot. if you want to get a better idea of the Quran, elvis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ffopaj0IIs

[Bingbong]

Balbir Singh Sodhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's it? One guy? Who was later convicted and will never see daylight again?
OH THE OUTRAGE!

And of course the difference... here, the put the guilty in prison, there, they watched the innocent suffer.

[Faris]

dont forget 2 wars after 9/11, and the whole concept of a race/religion/culture is being fought now, because of extremism.


thats more than Balbir Singh's incident.

[Neosutra]

Hey Firas, what do you think about the Sudan women arrested/flogged/beaten for wearing pants in a cafe?

Dumb whores had it coming for violating the Koran, or lolIslam?

[kareface]

Firas, you blame lack of understanding for the cause of extremism. However, it's religions propensity to justify faith that causes extremism. Faith is an irrational belief. Something you have to believe with out evidence or justification. Once you start down that path there's no limit to what will or will not be justified in the name of religion. If you get away from an irrational belief system, like religions, belief that one race is superior (ie nazis or kkk); if you are forced to justify your beliefs with objective evidence then you'll never end up blowing up a cafe or hanging someone for being diffrent or placing belief on what could nicely be described as a fairy tale.

If you believe god is talking with you, and there isn't really a god to begin with, what can't you justify?

[Correction]

Firas, you blame lack of understanding for the cause of extremism. However, it's religions propensity to justify faith that causes extremism. Faith is an irrational belief. Something you have to believe with out evidence or justification. Once you start down that path there's no limit to what will or will not be justified in the name of religion. If you get away from an irrational belief system, like religions, belief that one race is superior (ie nazis or kkk); if you are forced to justify your beliefs with objective evidence then you'll never end up blowing up a cafe or hanging someone for being diffrent or placing belief on what could nicely be described as a fairy tale.

If you believe god is talking with you, and there isn't really a god to begin with, what can't you justify?

All of your examples have been justified by atheists as well. I fail to see the causal link between faith -> murderous fanaticism. Mao had folks kill for him, too.

[ZarakiKujata]

hirsi-ali is as bad as those extremists....she was oppressed by her somali family, and she's taking it out on islam.


this video is from a person who was a christian preacher and a academic in mathematics and something else, i forgot. if you want to get a better idea of the Quran, elvis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ffopaj0IIs

If you've read the book she really wasn't. The only time she was actively oppressed by her family was when her grandmother forcefully circumcized her, her brother and her sister against the wishes of her parents. Coming from the life she has lived her arguments for engaging critical questions with Islam/the Koran are interesting and logical.