Your favorite surahs

[Mystic]

So your argument is God can't use words that can be interpreted differently then he intended even though one being a way better meaning then the other, or he isn't all wise?

[Mudhammam]

So your argument is God can't use words that can be interpreted differently then he intended even though one being a way better meaning then the other, or he isn't all wise?

I would argue that numerous books are written with far more clarity, artfulness, wisdom, and hence authority, than the book you claim---without logic or evidence---to be inspired or representative of a supremely wise and all-knowing intelligence.

[Dystopia]

@Nestor - I've said today that theologically you can use Jesus Christ's message to deny the entire old testament and hence create a liberal, tolerant, pro-equality religious belief as long as you take the "Love Thy Neighbour" thing with conviction - As someone who was barely even Christian and went to church a few times, I noticed Catholic priests seem to defend a metaphorical interpretation of most of the bible and are required to be educated in scientific matters (and the Pope now has a scientist as a consultant).

I do agree that one of the highest problems in Islam is that it requires a literalistic interpretation of Allah's words and it becomes a problem, but I also know that I'm not qualified to talk about the Quran or interpret it. One thing I like to keep in mind is that academically studying a religion is different than living it as a believer yourself, and the experience can lead to vastly different conclusions. Whether this is intellectually honest or not there are Muslims who support reformism and are self-critical. The biggest problem right now is that groups like ISIS have about a quarter million people and others like Al-Caida have about 50000 people so obviously they don't represent 1.6 billion Muslims - But the moderates, the ones who don't commit crimes, work, have children and do other normal activities everyone else does - Remain conspicuously quiet when terrorist attacks happen. I do not believe that the majority of Muslims support terrorism, I do not even believe that 50% of them could be classified as fundamentalists, but I do think the moderates and liberals need to stand up more often. We may not realize it but the biggest victims of terrorist groups are Muslims themselves - People's families are killed and raped, their goods are taken away, their children are recruited forcibly - These people are Muslims like everyone else, but they never did anything b sides praying and the usual believing in Allah stuff.

I don't think you should take Sam Harris' opinion with much certainty because he does seem to have a special instinct to pick on Islam - I understand the horrible acts being committed by terrorists suck, but does Harris even wonder if the invasions of the US played a part? Does he wonder why before the 60's it was complicated to find movies depicting antagonism between the USA and the middle east? Does he know precisely why is it that throughout history you can find examples of the Arab empire (and persian) being as tolerant or more tolerant than Christian ones but suddenly they are portrayed by the media as the Islamic State? Do you think it is weird that countries like Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and the United Emirates all have Muslims in it and somehow have different systems and mentalities ?

[Mudhammam]

Those countries may have vast differences but I'm doubtful as to how much that has to do with their "mentalities" as Muslim-majority nations; in regards to their bigoted views towards homosexuals and atheists (where one or both is tantamount to criminality in all those you listed), Islam as an irrational system of superstitious beliefs clearly inspires or directly condones such laws. And Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive, sexist, and barbaric nations in the world. It's also the historical center of Islam.

I would never argue that 1.7 billion people are equally responsible for the most heinous ideas and behaviors that Islam represents or promotes, and we can agree or disagree whether or not Sam Harris is too forgiving or trusting of U.S. foreign policy (I think he is), but it doesn't change the fact that part of being a Muslim requires you---to not simply accept some very bad doctrines---but to actively promote them. The extent to which reformers in the faith are able to secularize and moderate it is proportional to their ideological separation from the founder and its traditional ideals, just as a matter of history, and to the intimidation or dangers they face by the more conservative members of their religion, which arguably comprises the majority of Muslims.

[Dystopia]

Those countries may have vast differences but I'm doubtful as to how much that has to do with their "mentalities" as Muslim-majority nations; in regards to their bigoted views towards homosexuals and atheists (where one or both is tantamount to criminality in all those you listed), Islam as an irrational system of superstitious beliefs clearly inspires or directly condones such laws. And Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive, sexist, and barbaric nations in the world. It's also the historical center of Islam.

I agree with you and I believe that both the demand for literalistic interpretations as well as the lack of separation between church and State are the two major problems in Islam, far more than in Christianity or even Judaism - Saudi Arabia is indeed on the most oppressive regimes on earth and it fits the definition of an absolutist monarchy in perfection, but my argument was that it is inarguably an extreme case of violence and irrationality just like North Korea could be considered extreme compared to Cuba or even Lenin's more moderate during some years in the Soviet Union.

I would never argue that 1.7 billion people are equally responsible for the most heinous ideas and behaviors that Islam represents or promotes, and we can agree or disagree whether or not Sam Harris is too forgiving or trusting of U.S. foreign policy (I think he is), but it doesn't change the fact that part of being a Muslim requires you---to not simply accept some very bad doctrines---but to actively promote them. The extent to which reformers in the faith are able to secularize and moderate it is proportional to their ideological separation from the founder and its traditional ideals, just as a matter of history, and to the intimidation or dangers they face by the more conservative members of their religion, which arguably comprises the majority of Muslims.

I don't know how far can we go to claim that Muslims are forced or automatically compelled to follow and promote violent doctrines. As I said yesterday, the only requirement to being a Muslim is that you believe Allah is the one true god and that you can get into heaven by following the five simple pillars of the faith. I do not think all Muslims read the whole Quran, or if all of them understand the repercussions many verses have in real life - Correct me if I'm wrong but there are some people searching for secularism and reformism in Islam so they probably found a way to interpret the doctrine to fit it into a more humane narrative. I am not saying one interpretation is better or more correct, but since our only options are to either kill the majority of conservative Muslims or promote secularization I think we should choose the latter option for obvious reasons. 

I am someone who cares about practical results and not why people do it - If it means not cherry picking but openly rejecting half of the Quran, or using an alternative interpretation, or even (like some Muslims in a minority position do) reject Sharia and accept merely the Quran as  a source - I don't care, as long as it is done.

Sam vastly underestimates the effect of the west's foreign policies. There is no doubt that we (I'm talking about the west as a general group and not just one nation) played a part in inciting violence and terrorism. I don't think the fact 9/11 hit the WTC and the pentagon is a coincidence - Don't you agree? It seeks to send a very clear message with political and ideological repercussions. 

I disagree completely with politically correct people who believe religion doesn't play a part, but I also vehemently disagree with people who think religion is the only cause and that there isn't an antagonism between the middle east and the western world. That seems very clear and it's obvious by looking at simple portrayals the media does about the middle east, arabs, Muslims, etc.

Since you argued that Muslims are compelled to accept a dangerous doctrine, what do you think (as an American) countries like France should do about Muslim immigrants? Surveys predict that they may become a majority in 50 years time. What will happen? What would you propose? Because the way I see it if we are going to assume a category of people spouses an ideology that is dangerous we cannot cherry pick who's the true terrorist and that includes moderates.

[Mudhammam]

I don't think we can force anyone to agree that a particular book is certainly not divine or anywhere near perfect... so it would be ridiculous to suggest that we should treat Muslims different than anyone else. That would solve nothing. That being said, part of what it means to treat Muslims as equals with everyone else is to not pretend that they can hide behind a religious identity, in calling one's self a Muslim and what that implies with regard to the essentials doctrines of the faith, and then treat statements or criticisms of that specific facet of their character as racism or bigotry. Regardless of how anyone wants to interpret the Qur'an, or the Bible, the idea that it is a perfect book, that it is not a relic of human contrivance, is inevitably going to result in some portion of fanatics who interpret it literally (and why shouldn't they based on the logic religion itself employs?)---the reason being that the very notion that Muhammad was God's messenger is a fanatical belief and one that requires both an irrational mode of thought and an intellectually vapid set of ideas, coupled with complete and absolute devotion. So, the war is one of ideas, and this can only be fought if we are honest about not simply the connection between religion and action (nobody thinks that Islam is the only reason for the results we see in the Middle East, or that Christianity and the sort of religious devotion that is nationalism or 'U.S. exceptionalism' is solely responsible for U.S. intervention), but also about the nature of religion itself, and that people who refer to themselves as Muslims must to some extent be held responsible (not via force, but rather argument and even mockery) as complicit in its perpetuation. I would not doubt if many of the truly moderate Muslims---those who do not believe the Qur'an is God's unique message to all of mankind, or that it is flawless, or that Islam is a pathway to heaven and everyone else is doomed to eternal punishment for Adam's sin---retain the name so as to not damage their credibility within the faith and be seen as outsiders or apostates (we know what the Qur'an explicitly teaches about what ought to be done with them).

[Dystopia]

After reading the basics of Sharia Law I must say that regardless of how cultural or historically important it may be for countries that are traditionally a Muslim majority it is fundamentally incompatible with any principle of western society. There's just no way around it. Sharia is not like the bible that is full of poetry, parables, myths and stories - It is well organized, concise and straight to the point. There is no other way to interpret it other than how it is written there. Something like Sharia cannot be allowed and there is nothing about it that can legally be applied to western nations. The lack of secularism and separation of church and State; discrimination on the basis of sex, religion; the overwhelming support for retribution and personal revenge in the judicial system in contrast with our leaning towards rehabilitation and impartial moderate retribution/punishment; the fact it allows child marriage; the fact it clearly mandates that anyone who even disagrees with the doctrine is an apostate and obviously the barbaric forms of punishment like death for having sexual intercourse or cutting someone's hand off for stealing - It's all bad. It all sucks. I don't care how Muslims counter this, but they have to do it. This will never be accepted by anyone with a minimum of decent moral principles.

I think you make a good point about racism and bigotry because despite the stereotype most Muslims are not even arabic/arab looking - Regardless, I'm not going to deny that there's some profiling (sometimes against people who aren't Muslims but look like one or wear similar clothes), but it doesn't justify using the same old excuse over and over and over again. I think you hit the nail when you mentioned that Muslims need to stop hiding - First of all, I believe Muslims and Muslim activists who support secularism and reformism should openly admit that this isn't solely a politics game but also about religion and the fact the Quran is open to dangerous interpretations. I remember seeing an episode of the show "The Big Questions" in the UK (I posted it here I think) and there was this Muslim moderate (who some people in the comments believed to be faking his affiliation) who admitted Islam caused Charlie Hebdo and advocated tolerance, gender equality, religious freedom and even support for LGBT - This is the kind of people we need. If you watch any program discussing the Islamic State and see the question "Has this got anything to do with Islam?" being asked to a Muslim he/she will mostly answer "Well no, it's only politics" - That's a dangerous position because it excuses actions.

B sides admitting that religion plays a part, Muslims need to reject Sharia or at the very least dreaming of applying it outside a theocratic nation. I don't care how they do it, but they must otherwise anyone who doesn't convert is doomed. As for the Quran, I haven't read it, but I believe it is full of violence mixed with some peaceful messages (I think there was something about tolerating Jews and Christians and that's why Iran legally allows Jews and Christians to profess faith even though you can't be an atheist anyway).

Personally I see human beings as imperfect and I think as long as people have some independent freethinking and self-criticize themselves they should be able to follow whichever faith they want, provided that it doesn't impact legislation and doesn't violate the principle of secularism. What Muslims should do is to stop imagining they are always being persecuted and hated by the west and maybe wonder why some adverse reactions (sometimes extreme and unnecessary such as the vandalism against Mosques and Muslim shops after Charlie Hebdo) happen.

As an atheist, and considering the definition of atheism in 1917 was different (after all it only takes on entry into the dictionary, right?), I don't discard the possibility that State atheism perpetuated by Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Lenin was an oppressive force against believers that caused execution of religious people, priests, monks, scholars, the burning of churches (Lenin openly said he wanted to end religion like Marx predicted) - As a secularist, I think secularism combined with strong anti-theism and forms of State atheism can lead to the same result as a system full of religious fundamentalists. If I am able to admit that even something like atheism that doesn't have a unique doctrine (despite now having organized institutions, books and some common principles you can find in famous atheists) can lead people to not be tolerant of those who don't agree - I don't see why Muslims should be afraid to admit that Islam plays a part when you can easily find verses that condemn apostates and support the creation of a Nation-State based on religion. [In fact Saudi Arabia is theoretically the Muslim dream, the deal for oil was what kept them safe)